Allowed

Smt D B Manjula v. Sri K Murthy

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2024MFA/5520/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by claimants against a motor accident compensation award where liability had been saddled on the owner-cum-driver for want of a transport vehicle licence. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that no separate endorsement is required to drive LMV transport vehicles on an LMV non-transport licence, liability was shifted to the insurer and interest reduced.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of petition against insurer set aside; insurer directed to pay Rs.15,68,000 with 6% p.a. interest from date of petition within four weeks.

Smt D B Manjula Vs Sri K Murthy — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:48917-DB MFA No.5520/2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5520/2017 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. D.B. MANJULA W/O LATE R.B. SHIVA PRASADH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶9

SRI. SAGAR S/O LATE R.B. SHIVA PRASADH AGED ABOUT 19^1/2 YEARS.

¶10

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. B.S. RUDRAMMA W/O LATE K.S. BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT RAJAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. A.K. BHAT, ADV.,)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. K. MURTHY S/O KRISHNAN NO.5CN, NO.35 KULLIKAL PALACOD DDHARMAPURI DIST TAMIL NADU-636701.

¶17

THE LEGAL MANAGER M/S. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.4/5, 3RD FLOOR, S.V.ARCADE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:48917-DB MFA No.5520/2017

¶20

BELEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD OPP. BANNERGHATTA ROAD INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT POST BANGALORE-560076.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADV., FOR R2 R1 SERVED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.15,68,000/TO RS.40,00,000/- AWARDED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, (SCCH-1) BANGALORE, IN MVC No.905/2016 DATED 12.01.2017, WITH COST AND INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

( PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL )

¶29

Challenging the judgment and award in MVC

¶30

No.905/2016 passed by the Principal MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH1), the claimants have filed this appeal.

¶31

The appellants were claimants and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this appeal were respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48917-DB MFA No.5520/2017

¶33

The wife, son and mother of the deceased Sri.R.B.Shiva Prasadh filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/for the death of Sri.R.B.Shiva Prasadh in a road traffic accident that occurred on 09.02.2015. It is contended that the deceased was standing on the footpath near Hennagara gate and he was about to cross NH-7 Bengaluru-Hosur Main Road, at that time the driver of Mini Goods Tempo bearing Reg.No.TN-30-AR-6088 drove the same in rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased, resultantly the deceased sustained grievous injuries and later he succumbed to those injuries. It is contended that deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of accident and was working as a driver and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. Hence, sought compensation.

¶34

Respondent No.1, the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed objections. It has denied the liability to pay compensation. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself as he tried to cross the road abruptly without observing the vehicle coming on the highway. It is submitted

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48917-DB MFA No.5520/2017

¶36

that respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, therefore, there is a breach of conditions of the policy, hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. They have denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and sought dismissal of the claim petition.

¶37

The Tribunal recorded the evidence. Claimants examined PWs-1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-11. Respondents examined RWs-1 & 2 and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-11. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence allowed the claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.15,68,000/which is 80% of the total compensation of Rs.19,60,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. The Tribunal held that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 20%. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, hence the liability was saddled on respondent No.1, owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle to the extent of 80%. The present appeal is filed by the claimants challenging

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48917-DB MFA No.5520/2017

¶39

the saddling of liability by the Tribunal on respondent No.1, the owner-cum-driver of vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-30-AR-6088.

¶40

Sri.A.K.Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is restricting his prayer in the appeal only to the extent of the saddling liability on respondent No.1, ownercum-driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. It is submitted that the vehicle involved in the accident is Goods Tempo which is a Light Motor Transport vehicle and the driver of the offending vehicle was having driving licence of Light Motor Vehicle non transport. It is further submitted the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited¹ , held that no separate endorsement on the license is required to drive the transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class and in view of the said decision the liability is required to be shifted on the insurance company. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶41

Per contra, Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel

¶42

for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and fairly submits that the issue with

¶43

1 AIR 2017 SC 3668

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48917-DB MFA No.5520/2017

¶45

regard to driving of Light Motor Vehicle transport by the driver having driving licence LMV non transport is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan referred to supra. It is further submitted that the award of the Tribunal is not challenged by the insurance company as the claim petition was dismissed against it. He seeks to modify the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal with regard to award of interest from 9% to 6% p.a. Hence, he seeks to dispose the appeal by passing appropriate orders.

¶46

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and examining the materials on record, the point that arises for consideration is “ Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference”?

¶47

ANALYSIS

¶48

It is not in dispute that in a road traffic accident that occurred on 09.02.2015 Sri.R.B.Shiva Prasadh died. The vehicle involved in the accident was Mini Goods Tempo bearing Reg.No.TN-30-AR-6088. The said vehicle was owned and driven by respondent No.1. The Tribunal considering the evidence available on record has come to the conclusion that deceased was also negligent and has contributed to the accident to the

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:48917-DB MFA No.5520/2017

¶50

extent of 20% and the driver of offending vehicle was negligent to the extent of 80%. The said finding is not challenged by respondents. Claimants abandoned their challenge on that finding. The Tribunal considered the age, avocation and income of the deceased, assessed the compensation under the head of loss of dependency at Rs.18,00,000/- and in total it has assessed the compensation at Rs.19,60,000/- and awarded 80% of the same to the claimants i.e., Rs.15,68,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having driving licence to drive LMV transport as on the date of accident and directed respondent No.1/owner-cum-driver of the vehicle to pay compensation. Ex.R-11 the Driving Licence History Sheet of respondent No.1 indicates the date of birth of respondent No.1 as 31.01.1976, LMV licence issued on 14.03.1997/TN29. The date of issuance of licence corroborates Ex.R-8 and oral testimony of RW-2 also. Learned counsel for respondent - insurance company also does not dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding the driving licence to drive LMV non-transport.

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:48917-DB MFA No.5520/2017

¶52

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan referred supra has clearly held that driver holding licence to drive LMV non-transport can drive LMV-transport, a separate endorsement on his driving licence to drive LMV transport is not required. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.841/2018 in the case of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi and Ors. has held that the law laid down by it in Mukund Dewangan's case is the correct law. In view of the aforesaid judgments, we are of the considered view that respondent No.1 was having valid driving licence to drive LMV non transport, hence, he was eligible and competent to drive the LMV transport vehicle also.

¶53

For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered view that the liability saddled on respondent No.1 requires to be interfered in the present appeal and accordingly the liability is shifted on respondent No.2 - the insurer.

¶54

The claimants have restricted their appeal insofar as saddling of liability and they have not challenged the quantum of compensation, however, considering the fact that respondent No.2 - insurance company had no occasion to

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:48917-DB MFA No.5520/2017

¶56

challenge the impugned judgment and award of Tribunal as claim petition was dismissed against it, learned counsel representing the parties fairly concede to modify the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal with regard to award of interest at 6% p.a. In view of the same, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified by directing respondent No.2 to pay the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at 6% pa. from the date of petition till realisation.

¶57

For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶60

ii. The dismissal of the petition against respondent No.2 under the impugned award is hereby set aside.

¶61

iii. The appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,68,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:48917-DB MFA No.5520/2017

¶63

10 -

¶64

iv. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶65

v. Registry shall transmit the trial Court records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶66

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶67

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶68

BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Smt D B Manjula v. Sri K Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt D B Manjula v. Sri K Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kumar B C Vs Sri Manjunatha

Joseph P.C. Vs Revanna

Smt. Panchavarunam Vs the Managing Director

M/S Icici Lombard General Vs Mr Charles Mithun Shiri

Satish @ Satishkumar K Vs Karthik Kumar

Mamtaz Vs Vidyuth Shetty