The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22045 MFA No. 697 of 2017 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 697 OF 2017 (MV-D) …APPELLANT BETWEEN: B DHARMENDRA S/O JNANESHWARA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS VISVESWARAIAH ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN - 573201 (OWNER OF THE LORRY) (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANGALI VENKATSHULU S/O LATE RAMALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS DOOR NO. 1-3-451 SHANTHINAGAR RAYADURGAM - 515865 ANANTHPUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH – 515865 R-1 DECEASED R-2 AND R-3 ARE THE LRS OF RESPONDENT NO.1 2. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O VENKATESHULU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS NO. 1-3-451, SHANTHINAGAR, RATADURGAM - 515865 ANANTHPUR DISTRICT ANDHRAPRADESH – 515865 3. M GOWRI D/O VENKATESHULU MANGALI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22045 MFA No. 697 of 2017 HC-KAR D. NO 1-3-451,SHANTHINAGAR, BELLARY ROAD RAYADURGAM - 515865 ANANTHPUR DISTRICT ANDHRAPRADESH – 515865 4. MANJUNATHA K H S/O HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS KADAVINAKOTE VILLAGE HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HOLEKOTEHOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201 (DRIVER OF LORRY) 5. BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE JAGALUR MAHALINGAPPA BLDG B D ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577501
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI. CHANDAN GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 02.03.2021 R2 & R3 ARE TREATED AS LRs OF DECEASED R1 V/O DTD 02.03.2021) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1226/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. CHALLAKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 10,75,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22045 MFA No. 697 of 2017 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 19881 challenging the judgment and award dated 16.11.2016 passed in MVC.No.1226/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere2. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that claiming compensation for the death of one Sri M Krishna @ Mangali Krishna3 in a road traffic accident which occurred on 18.10.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of an offending lorry, the father, mother and sister of the deceased instituted a claim petition arraying the driver, owner and insurer of the offending lorry as respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the claim proceedings. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the claim 1 Hereinafter referred as to ‘Act, 1988’ 2 Hereinafter referred as to ‘Tribunal’ 3 Hereinafter referred as to ‘Deceased’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22045 MFA No. 697 of 2017 HC-KAR proceedings contested the same by filing separate statement of objections. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 16.11.2016 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of `10,75,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum. The Tribunal exonerated the driver and insurer i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 3 and fastened the liability to pay the compensation awarded on the owner of the vehicle who has been arrayed as respondent No.2 in the claim proceedings. Being aggrieved, the owner of the vehicle has filed the present appeal. 4. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri RB Sangamesh appearing for the appellant - owner, learned counsel Sri Chandan Gowda appearing for learned counsel Sri Nandish Patil for respondent Nos.2 and 3 – claimants and learned counsel Sri Janardhan Reddy appearing for respondent No.5 - insurer. 5. The primary contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurer from payment of compensation awarded and erred in fastening the liability to pay the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22045 MFA No. 697 of 2017 HC-KAR compensation on the owner of the vehicle. It is contended that the driver of the lorry had a valid driving licence to drive the insured lorry till 15.09.2014. That the driver had under gone a training course on 14.03.2015 to drive the insured lorry which is authorized to carry dangerous and hazardous goods and a certificate (Ex.R2) has also been issued in that regard. That the said training certificate is valid for a period of one year. Hence, it is contended that as on the date of the accident i.e., 18.10.2015, the driver of the vehicle was authorized to drive the insured vehicle. It is further contended that solely due to the fact that the driver having undergone the training was not entered in his driving licence by the concerned statutory authorities, the Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay the compensation awarded on the owner of the vehicle which is erroneous. In support of his contention learned counsel relies upon the following judgments: i. “New India Assurance Company Ltd., vs. Shri Velumurugan V And Another4; 4 “ILR 2015 KAR 393” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22045 MFA No. 697 of 2017 HC-KAR ii. Sri Rangadhamaiah v/s Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd5;” 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 – insurer justifies the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contends that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that as on the date of the accident the driver was not duly licenced is just and proper and the fastening of the liability on the owner of the vehicle is also just and proper. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 – claimants supports the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The submissions of the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The question that arises for consideration is ‘whether the finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability to pay the compensation awarded on the owner of the vehicle is erroneous and liable to be interfered with?’ 8. The relevant fact, situation regarding the occurrence of the accident on 18.10.2015 is undisputed. It is 5 “MFA No.2262/2015” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22045 MFA No. 697 of 2017 HC-KAR further undisputed that the offending lorry bearing No. KA-07- 5773 was involved in the accident. It is also forthcoming from the record that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the driver of the lorry was negligent in causing the accident in question, which has not been challenged in the present appeal. It is also a matter of record that the lorry was insured with the insurer from 22.05.2015 to 21.05.2016 and as on the date of the accident i.e., 18.10.2015 the policy of insurance was in force. It is also a matter of record that the insured vehicle was a heavy goods vehicle – tanker (HGV). 9. The insurer had taken a contention before the Tribunal that the driver of the lorry did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured lorry as on the date of the accident. However, in the statement of objections both the driver and owner of the vehicle have asserted that the driver of the lorry was duly licenced to drive the vehicle. The driver of the lorry was examined as RW.1. He has deposed that he was duly licenced to drive the insured vehicle. The driving licence (Ex.R1) disclosed that the driver was authorized to drive hazardous vehicle till 15.09.2014. Ex.R2 is a certificate dated - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22045 MFA No. 697 of 2017 HC-KAR 14.03.2015 issued, whereunder it is certified that the driver has undergone a hazardous goods transportation drivers refreshers training course as required under Section 14(2) of the Act, 1988 read with Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and the certificate is valid for one year from date of issuance. Hence, it is clear that the driver of the vehicle had undergone the requisite training to drive a hazardous goods vehicle upto one year from 14.03.2015. However, there is no endorsement in that regard in the driving licence. It is relevant to note that the insurer examined its official as RW.2. No other witness is examined by the insurer. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd4 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has held as follows: “10. So far as point No. 1 is concerned, the appellant is not disputing the driver possessing a valid licence to drive a HGV. The contention of the appellant is that since the vehicle in question is registered as petrol tanker, special endorsement was required to be obtained by the driver to drive a petrol tanker. Admittedly, when the accident occurred, it was an empty tank. ………….. Proviso to Section 14(2)(a) clearly indicates that special licence is required to drive a vehicle, which is carrying on goods of dangerous or hazardous nature and such licence will be effective for a period of one year and thereafter the driver has to undergo one day refresher - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22045 MFA No. 697 of 2017 HC-KAR course of the prescribed syllabus. Therefore, it is clear that the special licence to be granted under this proviso will be valid for one year and thereafter it will be renewed subject to the driver undergoing one day refresher course, which indicates that in order to grant such special licence, the driver has to undergo a course which is meant for safety measure. Safety measure is required when the vehicle is carrying on combustible, dangerous or hazardous nature of goods. In other words, if a tanker is not carrying on goods of dangerous or hazardous nature, there is no necessity to obtain such special licence to drive an empty tanker. Therefore, the arguments of Sri R. Jaiprakash that the driver did not possess an endorsement is not acceptable. Accordingly, we hold that in order to drive empty tanker, no such licence is required because the vehicle did not carry any dangerous or hazardous nature goods. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered in negative.” (emphasis supplied) 11. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Rangadhamaiah5 has held as follows: “8. The accident and death is not in dispute. Only dispute is with regard to the vehicle loaded with hazardous goods. Hence, the driver having valid driving licence with validation period for a period of three years. The burden is on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle to prove that as on the date of the accident, it was not loaded with goods of dangerous or hazardous nature. In this regard Section 14(a) proviso specifically makes it clear that "in case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year." It makes it clear that to drive a vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous in nature a special licence is to be obtained. The proviso is silent whether special licence is required even to drive a empty vehicle. In this regard there should have been some material on that aspect. 9. Insurer was served and unrepresented and claimant have also not placed any material to that effect. The burden is heavily on the insurer to prove and disprove the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:22045 MFA No. 697 of 2017 HC-KAR same under section 170 of the MV Act. The records are silent as to whether lorry was carrying hazardous or dangerous goods on the date of the accident. Unless a specific finding is given in that regard, fastening of liability on the Insurance company does not arise. In the circumstances, the matter stands remitted to the Tribunal with a direction to record a finding whether the offending vehicle was loaded with goods of dangerous or hazardous nature.” (emphasis supplied) 12. It is forthcoming from the aforementioned factual matrix and the legal position that the driver of the vehicle was duly authorized to drive a hazardous goods vehicle up to 15.09.2014. That he has undergone the requisite training on 14.03.2015 as is forthcoming from certificate (Ex.R2) which was valid for one year from the date of issue. There is no endorsement in the driving licence (Ex.R1) that the driver of the insured vehicle was authorized to drive hazardous vehicle as on the date of the accident. However, having regard to the fact that the driver had undergone the requisite training on 14.03.2015 which was valid for one year, it cannot be held that the driver was in any manner disqualified from driving the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence, the finding recorded by the Tribunal fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation awarded is erroneous and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:22045 MFA No. 697 of 2017 HC-KAR liable to be interfered with. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 13. In view of the discussion made above, having regard to fact that the policy of insurance was in force as on the date of the accident, the insurer (respondent No.5 herein / respondent No.3 before the Tribunal) is liable to pay the compensation awarded. 14. At this stage learned counsel for the insurer submits that the interest at the rate of at 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and in view of the fact that the liability was fastened on the owner of the vehicle, the insurer did not have an occasion to challenge the judgment of the Tribunal with regard to interest. Hence, it is contended that since the liability is being fastened on the insurer by virtue of the order passed in the present appeal, he seeks that the award of interest from 9% per annum be reduced. 15. Having regard to the Order 41 Rule 33 of Code Of Civil Procedure, 19086, as also keeping in mind the fact that the 6 Hereinafter referred as to ‘CPC’ - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:22045 MFA No. 697 of 2017 HC-KAR judgment and award of the Tribunal has been challenged by the owner, whose liability with the insurer is joint and several, and taking judicial notice of the rate of interest awarded towards fixed deposits, it is just and proper that the interest on the compensation awarded be reduced to 7%. 16. In view of the aforementioned, the following: i) ii)
Decision
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part; The judgment and award dated 16.11.2016 passed in MVC.No.1226/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere, is hereby modified to the extent of holding that the insurer (Respondent No.5 herein / respondent No.3 before the Tribunal) shall be liable to pay the compensation awarded and the rate of interest on the compensation awarded is reduced to 7%. Accordingly, the insurer shall deposit the compensation together with accrued interest within six weeks from today; iii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be apportioned between claimant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., mother and sister equally. Out of the compensation apportioned, 50% shall be - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:22045 MFA No. 697 of 2017 HC-KAR kept in the fixed deposit for a period of three years in any nationalized bank of the choice of the claimants, upon expiry of which period, the fixed deposit amount together with accrued interest shall be disbursed to the claimant Nos.2 and 3 respectively without any further orders either of the Tribunal or this Court in that regard; iv) The amount deposited by the appellant in the above appeal shall be refunded to the appellant; v) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly; vi) Records be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. No costs. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63