BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. VUDLAYYASWAMV S ‘0 VARABRAHHASWAM

(By SMT. R.D.DESA1, ADV.) RAV1, S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA r’1ANTUR AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS OWNER OF T0MTOM AUTO R1KSHAW NOKA28/6814R/O KUDALSANG/\ r,.1. TO: HUNGUiD, DIST: BAGALKOT.

2. AMIR RAM.JAN, .3/0 MOHAMMADSAB MULLA, / ES D2 / “--r / R/O K.UDALSANGAM, TQ: HUNGUND. THE BPANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. BRAC H OFFIC F, 1 MELLIGERI COMPLEX, KALADGI ROAD, BACALKOT FLOOR, . PESPuNDEr’TS BY RAWF4DRA k. F.1A..JE ADv. Fuk P..,. P 1 SERVED, R-? NOTICE DISPENSED VJTH) IHLSE MFAs ARE FILED U!S 1 13(1) OF- MV AC1 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED’112?2009 PASSED IN MVC NO 427/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK C OURT NO.11 & MOTOR AC C IDFNT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO IX, BAGALKOT, AND ETC. THE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THb DAY MANJULA CHELLUR J , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWIN(, JUDGMENT By onsent f 1’oth sides, these tv.c .iDCd:a u”: eara and disposcd of 2 MFA.21232O(j9 :‘ filed h) Cli.. flcuFe an FA 1’-r’;t. rr. it fl... •eh: ‘! (.i’lt ‘ii’ ‘. c — ..r. r’• frfr. ;

1.1 ...‘. i •iirt •tr’ : ô ‘ . r m ,- r’rt .‘ _ •y Li. — 1 II • r t a. • . .. m’’ ( I- - ‘I R ci,000 - as tornp?nsation Liability to indern 11ty tht ,n%ured was fixed aqainst the insurer-appellant. 3 Aqgritvcd by the award f th€ Tritun3l 0th it’. iairn.ptj ana the nsunr h3.-’ ssJb,j th! c.jrP ut ‘I Kr ati t 4 Auordinq to the Insurer, there s no iahilit, L pa the compensation ‘n new & the v.clation S tI,. te’ rn0 ot the contract of insurance by handing o,er th vehicle tc driver who did not have ,alid and effective licence to drne the vehicle in question ii the absence of any specifar badge o drive autorickshaw a’ rontemplated under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, i. )89, hereinafter rekrret tn as the RijIc ,‘.

5. n tar as the argumeits f rh iearc ‘ur.sc, ‘ “ii. — C—. — .‘ tn e.’r — . ———z ‘‘)eHc —d •1 I

1.1 n.ji I.. •r’’ • —. te.? — afl’ ,r nr,t,c • )( II ( ‘I 1

1.t “it ‘1 ‘S’ ST.,. t/’- t_,;.;( C •r.t ‘ r— •. •,• — . if. In orier ti considn the valid and effecti c drivinj Ii cnce I thc drivu of thc ntfc ndinj .ehick’. ier itttc9y, tne driver t’ the vehile had trie ‘u,.enrt •Jr;- i0ht nutir “—fl”1t I Irp1e, F.’rm-5 f t- Pu’ rdi ate Dc d-% npti r Ia )fc .on wi c v ii need licence. Section 10 deal’ with the licentes to l’t. icsu?t1 by he autt”ority ..ni..erne. Sect!on 2t21) c f th M V Act deals with the definition of light ‘noto’ vehicle rhe defin.tion of light motor vc hic 1W rc.levarit for thc or t.)nside, ;ng thc Iidbd,ty ..f the. irisurt r apprl6nt. which reads ac under light motor 3a 2(7 1) transpott hi:le ‘ weiaht f either of which ‘ a mtor c.ir r tractor or road ro!Ier th’ uniaden v’ei9ht t a,v hwh, doec n’it ereed ‘.SoO kilngrans nniL is the gr . U i ‘nta • •V. . r ,“:ro .‘t[ i. a j •‘—‘ L’ - r’’r•• flJ— I d •,. ...r’ ‘. ‘‘I— •t I ‘._,rr t ) I- ‘•i ..qt’ . çr”. i . - •j ,J.i r ‘1q ••. . i I r,f t / ‘ ‘• :•r’ • I— ,3I’ .1’., I I i . I • ..“‘ J . I. . I (a) motor cyck with’ Ut gcar (hI motor cyc to with qear, iiivaiid carridge; (i ) (d) light motor vthicl’; transport ehicle, (cI (i) road-roller; o torveh :e I ;p cifi d ript1 T. Sectkin lb niad ..ith Pue 18 and Form h would indicate the form and contentc nf licence to drivt. a ‘‘ hicl to b is ued in a raiticular manner As dlrady stated above, Section 2(211 deals with definition of light motor vehiclc R ading )f Settic,n 2(211 and Section 10 if the Ad would nable us to concludt th 3t in order understand the valid and effective licence, one ha: U see whether the chicle involved n thc ic.rid€nt wc, ld for cn jf thc classificati n of ehir’ s les’ rifled i nciri Sc ‘tlr i 10 or the Act and sc also rnrrn 6 f tflt: Pu..”.. rt1 t Id ‘‘e ‘a d ‘ F ‘r. c ‘—c cmlE’t ..7 ‘C - b.. ‘Fr ; t.]— ‘ 21 ‘,f n1 4 ‘ rn ‘.‘ ir ‘ !c •r• .j’,nt. • • . r .rT- T’i •t. ‘... r , . r• _r1 4?• .. .,;r..f •,••r •. f I ) r the date of the au.ident, then the techniralities like mcdi al titntss certiticate, endorsc mt nt of thc naturt of rehicle put forward ty the appellant’s Counsel nnuid nnt qr )unJ to *s N’.. ‘he ‘abil tv a ht Id ir National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaransingh & Others, reported in 2004(3) SCC 297.

9. In tht pre;ent case, tht. unladt n w ight U th offending vehicle is much below 7,500 Vgs as defined under Section 2(21) the Act T’hereforc autor’ckshaw in question falls under the definitir,n or light motor vohicle The drivcr in question h id ha I. qht Me. tor Vehicle license to drive the ,ehicle as on the date nf c dcn 10 flj iras Berth of ‘hi’ ; ‘i’rt had r’ :c.3s,re. riiu. V ibtlU’ y I i i “, 1 I r 3tu’ “ ‘.l’A I ?L, ‘1 •97 “j’ t; r,:.._ ‘,. )r,Jr Cs P (a_ t I h1’ r.:’tI.rs.r..el_;_. P,.’;. f”t’ ‘.‘ ,,, I, 1 :1 .3 . , I ‘ (‘ T r ‘)t — I’, j , tI’ ‘ — tr j —‘ , .1 C, t 4 ‘ C ‘ . I valid effective driving licence ana th person holding the Ii cncc must be held as duly authc ii ed tc vehk k* in ‘h.- irtu cit .jSt.... a dad) :tt.;z an... the- LsfliOdefl ::eicjht of J’.Linc frshat’. la es lilt-. :-h,it ;n question under the fold of light motor vehick The only defence r jiced t / the insurer appellait s t ‘iat thert ft is no badge indicating that he hac a licence tc- drive the passenger carrier vehicle. Though the licence of the uiivtr )ffending ,chicle ii d.dz J poscissing licence t diive heavy gocds e. Litht.r Section 10 nor Fern No.6 refeis to neavy goods vehicle dS su h It nnh, n-ft c i’ tian’tport t’nk it Trraspe. F; -c f nhPthe’ tt ‘thick. is a JcGJS ‘eI i I c a ass-’ .‘.r it j l. tijtui. u 3-r ); lU • tp • r ic T Eu - I .e - .:h;rr’ W fi°r’ (‘ . ci• ‘t n - r’ r° ci .it n-, P -i .- . e I. .‘. —n • I--..’. - .•,•• f: -.-- ‘ti i ‘ iti., ‘ ..1 . - — ‘.— ‘. — I r r r I tec hnical deficit, which would definitely not touch upon the ‘xrerknce or thc ability to drive autorickshaw In that v i’i uf ti’e •Tldttel. r;1 we of die opin;un tht’ dfen. c 1w ins’ir’- - nptii.rr Fhat tip.. dr,vt 3id not r.c s’ t ‘ dr rg 1K .c’ n.j dci

12. Then coming to the appeal filed by the parentc of the dewased :n NFA “Jo.21902?009, the Tritmal hr awarded Rs.52,000;- ompensation appellar’ts/ laimants seek tnhancement of the same

13. Appatently. the claimants are th, !2erents of the deceased Vacanth who was S year5 old at thc t.rne of ‘us death TPt. learned ounsel I r the claimant re ie UDOfl thc deuion “ the rasp :.f SANTUSH PAajJ VS PAN ITT SING-I ‘‘ported ir 200S AC) 14O tc’ cnLnc that •9a O; - 51) / or’.rt.. .m , K f . : :tnc1 ‘h• ,_np’ arr.,u P ‘i r.1.ot;or r. —: n r’ •:r’ Fl ..‘.;...t’ I’ f %i• • Pt. ‘1 •“r:— . • ..-‘ — -. r.t. — . - • . • awarded depending upon the I3cts and circumstances of each claim petitior He places reliance on the detision in the ase or KAUSHLYA DEV1 .VS. SHRIKARAN AROPA ANfl flTHF-PS rnrerted n (19 200 S(. 596 t.. nrtt,,d th0t thp ‘nrenation iwarded was F., 1,00,000 wncn t FPrtain to death of 14 years old boy. Therefore according to him hav’ng regard to the uncertainty of crossing all the hurdes infancy of the deceased Vasath, it cannot even be Rs. 1,00,000/-.

15. Apparentl’, father of the deceased sas a photographer Therefore one can saftjy antic.ipatt that ht would send his child to a proper school depending upon his capacity to ha”p ciood rducatior’ Tt ‘,nufr! na’ hec’n jit(igeth._r a different sitjatun .f t’- ch;id Wt r. tr. ‘d:r,i4 ‘U iji’ y ayr ‘UiC Sit .. t i r. ga, zl ‘ t1 C. it ‘r ,j a’c4 ° •r,tjt • ra i 0 —‘ s’:”; -6 . ,1;(,t:- .,j. . ui r- i.i --‘.1 1’7 -r? - r i fb’1 , ‘ 2” r—. — ‘ j;cI. ,r. —_, ir ;j •.f: •:. h, I . •_ fT .1 • S d ‘ ‘4 interest at 6% per annum from thE date of petition till the date of deposit The amount shall be di trihuu d equa l hi tht’ appellants parents. The amount ir depr’cit shdll b tr1.rli.snr ri-sd tc’ th’ flflterflcd Trib r - WI Sb) r JUDGE r- $1 Jb)E Sub ‘qss