Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 271 (KAR)

M. S. Ardhanari v. K. C. Subba Reddy

2020-01-30

H.P.SANDESH, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2020
JUDGMENT H P Sandesh, J. - The second respondent in M.V.C.No.2701/2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo hall Unit, Bengaluru (SCCH-19) has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 14.02.2017 passed therein. 2. Admittedly, the claim petition was filed by respondents No.1 and 2 herein seeking compensation for the death of their son in a road traffic accident dated 06.03.2010 involving motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-03-EL-117 and lorry bearing registration No.KA-03- A-0127. 3. It is not in dispute that the deceased K. Pulla Reddy, victim of the accident was riding the motorcycle at the relevant point of time which met with an accident with lorry which is a petrol tanker owned by the second respondent before the Tribunal, appellant herein and insured with the first respondent before the Tribunal which is second respondent in this proceedings. 4. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the accident is established, death of K. Pulla Reddy due to the injuries suffered in the accident is also established. Hence, the Tribunal appreciated the claim of his parents and assessed compensation payable to them for the death of their son initially in a sum of Rs.1,06,49,132/- payable with interest at the rate of 6% per annum by judgment and award dated 12.05.2014 which was subject matter of challenge in M.F.A.No.3992/2014. While doing so, the liability to pay compensation was saddled on the owner of the vehicle which was subject matter of challenge before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.3992/2014 which was disposed of by order dated 05.04.2016 in remanding the matter back to the Tribunal. In the said appeal the grounds urged were two dimensional, firstly with reference to quantum of compensation and secondly with reference to the findings of the Tribunal in saddling the liability to pay compensation on the owner of the vehicle. 5. When the appeal was filed by the second respondent before the Tribunal, for the first time, the Coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.1,06,49,132/- and remanded matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. However, while doing so, the second ground which was urged regarding shifting of liability on the insurance company was left open to be decided by the Tribunal. However, while doing so, the second ground which was urged regarding shifting of liability on the insurance company was left open to be decided by the Tribunal. It is in this context, the remanded matter in M.V.C.No.2701/2010 was considered by the Tribunal and disposed of by judgment and award dated 14.02.2017 which is subject matter of this appeal. 6. In this appeal also, the grounds urged is in challenge to the quantum of compensation as well as saddling liability to pay compensation entirely on second respondent, though the truck belonging to the second respondent was insured with the first respondent-insurer. In the instant appeal, though the insurer is duly served, it has remained unrepresented. Hence, the present appeal is taken up for consideration in the presence of learned counsel for the appellant, who was second respondent before the Tribunal. 7. The sum and substance of the argument submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the truck which has involved in the accident namely, lorry bearing registration No. KA-03-A-0127 is a petrol tanker, which was driven by one Ramesh S., Son of Sada Shivan, who is charge sheeted in the criminal proceedings initiated by the State after the accident. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that, the said Ramesh S. is a qualified driver and he is also trained in driving petrol tankers, as it is established in the proceedings before the Tribunal. He would also contend that the second respondent has taken the insurance policy covering liability of the said truck under a policy bearing No.072400/31/09/01/00005912 valid from 03.11.2009 to 02.11.2010 and that the accident having taken place in between the period when it is valid on 06.03.2010, the insurer is liable to make good the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants. He would also contend that the objection which was raised by the insurer in contending that the insurer does not have liability to pay compensation is without basis and contrary to the law laid down in catena of decisions. 8. He would also contend that the objection which was raised by the insurer in contending that the insurer does not have liability to pay compensation is without basis and contrary to the law laid down in catena of decisions. 8. To substantiate the same, he would take us through the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Baghelkhand Filling Station vs- Brijbhan Prasad, (2006) ACJ 2503 also LAWS (MPH) 2005-9-21 wherein, under similar fact situation, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sub-para-7 of the judgment has held as under: "Thus, the crux of the matter would be whether such a breach that is to say not having obtained necessary endorsement as required under sub-rule (3) of rule 9 the Rules, the accident occurred due that non-endorsement has been discussed hereinabove, the said endorsement is not required to be given to the driver after having gone through any specialized training or after having passed any special test. Any driver who has held a driving licence to drive a tanker would be entitled to this endorsement subject to fulfilling of other conditions as contemplated in sub-rule (3) of rule 9, but they do not deal with the professional skill of driving. With regard to professional skill of driving, he has already been clarified by the licensing authority at the time of granting of licence to him. It is not the case of the respondents that his driving licence was not obtained properly". 9. The aforesaid finding of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court is subsequently followed by the High Court of Punjab-Haryana at Chandigarh in the matter of Hardeep Singh and Anr -vs- United India Insurance and Ors which is disposed of by judgment dated 30.01.2019 and also in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited -vs- Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Others disposed of by the Punjab-Haryana High Court at Chandigarh by judgment dated 17.02.2017 and also by the learned Single Judge of this Court in M.F.A.No.937/2011 in the matter of Renu and Another - vs- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. disposed of on 11/21.03.2014 (a reported judgment) and also in the matter of Manjegowda -vs- C.T. Nagesh and Ors, (2016) 1 AIRKarR 299 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in M.F.A.No.3591/2010. 10. Ltd. disposed of on 11/21.03.2014 (a reported judgment) and also in the matter of Manjegowda -vs- C.T. Nagesh and Ors, (2016) 1 AIRKarR 299 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in M.F.A.No.3591/2010. 10. When all these judgments are looked into with reference to the Division Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court which squarely covers the fact situation of the appeal on hand, this Court is of the considered opinion that, when the material on record clearly indicates that the Driver of the appellant namely, Ramesh S., not only had valid Driving License to drive a commercial vehicle as on the date of the accident, but also had secured an endorsement on his license to drive hazardous vehicle, which is now seen from the original of his Driving License bearing No. KA-03-19890004130 issued on 27.06.1989 and subsequently, renewed on 11.10.2019 wherein, the said license is referred to as hazardous license. In other words, a license which empowers him to drive hazardous vehicle namely, the petrol tanker. In addition to that, there are several documents which are produced and marked before the Court below vide Exs.R2 to R4 which are certificates issued by Indian Oil Corporation, Transport Department Officer's Association and Maruti Driving School respectively in getting himself trained in driving hazardous vehicle which would clearly indicate that, as on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle not only had valid Driving License to drive commercial vehicle but, also hazardous vehicle which is not rightly appreciated by the Tribunal while considering the claim petition in M.V.C.No.2701/2010 which has resulted in the liability to pay compensation being squarely saddled on the shoulders of the owner of offending vehicle, though the said vehicle was covered under valid insurance policy on the said date. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we hold that this appeal filed by the second respondent before the Tribunal challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.2701/2010, so far as it pertains to saddling the liability to pay entire compensation on the owner of the offending vehicle has to be shifted jointly and severally on both the owner as well as the insurer of the offending vehicle. However, while considering this appeal, this Court also hold that no grounds are made out to reconsider the quantum of compensation which was reassessed by the Tribunal, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in M.F.A.No.3992/2014 by order dated 05.04.2016 which has resulted in scaling down the compensation which was earlier awarded in a sum of Rs.1,06,49,132/- to the present level of compensation at Rs.60,01,520/- payable with interest at 6% per annum. Therefore, without disturbing the said quantum of compensation, this appeal is disposed of clarifying the liability which was saddled on the appellant herein. 12. In view of the appeal of the second respondent being allowed, the amount in deposit is ordered to be released in its favour. While doing so, the first respondent, insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The learned counsel for the appellant is directed to communicate this order to the contesting second respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited through registered post, acknowledgement due and as well as by hand delivery.