Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 161 (KAR)

Reliance Insurance Company Limited v. Suheb

2021-01-27

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2021
JUDGMENT : H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. 1. These appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) have been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.8.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 8.6.2008, the claimants were traveling in the auto rickshaw as inmates near Tonde Hitlu, Yalajith, Kundapura Taluk, at that time, Tempo Trax bearing registration No. KA-34-A-339 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle in which the claimants were traveling. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimants sustained grievous injuries and were hospitalized. 3. The claimants filed petitions under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that they spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. 4. On service of notices, the respondent No. 1 owner of tempo appeared through Counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw by its driver. The policy is in force and respondent No. 2 is liable to pay compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. The respondent No. 2, insurer of tempo appeared through Counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the auto rickshaw by its driver. The driver of the tempo did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. The petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. The driver of the tempo did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. The petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. The respondent No. 4, insurer of auto rickshaw appeared through Counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo by its driver. The driver of the auto rickshaw did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. The liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the tempo by its driver, as a result of which, the claimants sustained injuries and directed the insurer of tempo to deposit the compensation amount along with interest in all the cases. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed. 6. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the Tempo Trax was having licence to drive LMV (Non-transport) valid from 9.3.1998 to 8.3.2018 and he was also having licence to drive transport vehicle valid from 11.12.2011 to 10.12.2014. The accident has occurred on 8.6.2008. As on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having driving licence to drive the transport vehicle, since the vehicle involved in the accident is a transport commercial vehicle. The insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeals. 7. The insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeals. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, owner of Tempo Trax has contended that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the Tempo Trax was having licence to drive LMV (non-transport) valid from 9.3.1998 to 8.3.2018 and he was driving the goods vehicle at the time of the accident. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 , wherein it is held that a person holding driving licence to drive LMV (Non-Transport) can also drive transport vehicle, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. The unladen weight of the vehicle involved in the accident was less than 7500 kgs. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the insurer of the tempo trax. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeals. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. It is not in dispute that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The Insurance Company has produced Ex. R-4, history sheet for the drivers issued by the licencing authority, RTO, Bellary. It is very clear from the said document that the driver of the tempo was having driving licence to drive motor vehicle other than transport vehicle valid from 9.3.1998 to 8.3.2018 and licence to drive transport vehicle valid from 11.12.2011 to 10.12.2014. The accident has occurred on 8.6.2008. Therefore, it is clear that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was having driving licence to drive LMV (Non-transport). LMV means a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kgs. The Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), has held that driver holding driving licence to drive LMV (non-transport) can also drive transport vehicle, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. The Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), has held that driver holding driving licence to drive LMV (non-transport) can also drive transport vehicle, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. In view of the above said decision of the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the driver of the tempo trax was having valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Accordingly, there is no error in the finding of the Tribunal and hence, the same is confirmed. 10. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal.