IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
BATED THIS THE 18fl!E&X OF NOVEMBER, 2008
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PRCHHAPUR$WfmIfi_
M.F.A. No.593O gg 2004 {WC} "'
BETWEEN:
The Branch Manager, : 3
M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd;;.*
Bellary, 1 a
New represented by V
The Administrative Officer,
Regional Office,
M.G.Road, s. .n"«,§ 'a_ "=.~
Bangalore--25. fl_*a .1 5V a_,,; APPELLANT (S)
(By M/3."ALHnVenkafiasfiy§*B.$?5hivannegowda, Advs.)
BE?'
1. G.Nagaraj,'V,
.-. sfo¢§G.Krishna;.w
'*Agéd'ahcuta44 yeafa,
V. 'E'X_VDriuver,.
'_R7og'Néar~Coufi;ilor.
Kumaraawamy'a"house,
wa:d'No,17;g'
_ Kottalapalli, Near N.N.Pet,
v_Bellary;;
_'Dr;.Lakshminarayana Reddy,
'~'M}S.R.Hospital,
"",H${N.Pet Main Road,
V, Owner of Maruti Gmni Car,
' Bellary. ... RESPONDENT(S)
(By Sri. Goda Nagaraj, Adv. for R1.
Sri. M.S.My1ar, Adv. for R2 (absent)
This M.F.A. is file u/Sec. 30(1) of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act against the Order dated
11.06.2004, passed in WCA/NF/311/2003, on theӤile
of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for fiorkmanfs
Compensation, Sub–Division 2, Bel1ary,_IAwardingin
Compensation of 513.2, 84,659-00 with intaresut Va.tV”’12–%”
and directing the appellant herein to_..deposi.§ .the{
same. .:
This M.F.A. having been heépdféno feéefvénifofi
Judgment, this day the o_courto ‘prononnoed’ ‘the ‘v
folloingz
This appeals. is the Order
passed by the fiflifinenis fiomnonnnfion Commissioner,
Beuary. in i dated 11 . 06 . 2004
granting H _. .2, 84, 659-00 with
interest ntJ12$ in fa§¢§§»§£ the J?” respndent and
directing the annellant £5 pay the same.
‘”.g; Tfié facts relevant for the purpose of this
appeaifafeaésvundér:
Tho I’? fospondent filed petition under Section
::15o,”of,z the flbrkmen’s Compensation Act, 1953
iioiinefeinaiter called as “W.C.Act’} alleging that he
i fias””employed as a driver of the car bearing
iajfégistration No.KA 34*A–800l owned by the
2113
:respondent. That on 05.05.2003 whiie the car was
K
proceeding back to Bellary after admitting a patient
in a hospital at Bangalore, near Hirehalli, when the
vehicle was proceeding on the proper side ofajtahe
road it is claimed that the bus bearing registretionK_
No.KA–16–6989 came from the opposite faizeeiionl
driven in rash and negligent manner and hit the oarJH
The claimant/respondent No.1 3sggg§ineai”§ri§§§§§.
injuries and was treated in different hosnitelsk’ He
submits that he has ;spent:,§s;1;0Q,ObO4fi0A_towards
medical expenses and” also feiaises’ that he is
disabled to do any work; f:It is the farther case
that he was pais Esf§,§O0LQ§ as saiary per month and
batta ofh_ Rs.1GG%0§ oer éay’and he further states
that the aocidentioobarrefi during the course of his
employment as drifier of the Emirespondent herein ané
iolaimee’ ieomeensation of Rs.10,oo,ooo»oo with
interest’andhoosts.
Ink.pnrsnan¢e of the notices issued, the
iteeployer land the insurer appeared before the
i4
compensation as the driver did not hold any
effective and valid driving licence to drive the
Maruti Omni Ambulance and therefore, submitted _to
exonerate him from the liability as there is hreeehu
of the conditions of the insurance policy.er’.~eu
it is thereafter that the eiaimeht led efiidenees
by examining himself as Riflrl end* the ~a§¢¢§rf;es
P.W.2 and in the evidence aebt marked fdoedeents
Exs.A1 to 13, whereas.the resfiondent5 exesined R.W.1
a V V i m % learned
and got marked Exs.Rif’ahde’2;rd7enfhe
Commissioner afte§._heari§g§:nhéfeggunsei passed the
impugned “wbrderi uéranting ithei compensation of
Rs.2,84,6§9~§0.0 VwiVth.”‘:~ivn’t.erest at 3.2% and holding the
appellant responsible to nay the same. Aggrieved by
rthe said :Grder’,,the. insurer has preferred this
appeel;_ ,’a’
4′!
art L.heye heard the learned counsel for the
.rf_eepellant and the respondents.
‘vi4;v:The points that arise for my consideration
1. Whether the impugned Order imposing
the liability on the appellant to
04
9
in the circumstances where vehicle was weighing
5,926 kilos and the vehicle is designed as a goods
carrier held that it is a transport vehicle and the
person is authorised to drive only’ L.M.VL ~sna} hex
could be said to possess an effective _s§aif§5iia.’~
licence and that the Insurance Company cannot.escapecuV
the liability on the ground of oreachzoftpoliey;iM&*Q’
10. So also the learnee,ccunsei re1iéd€heon’the
decision reported in ,1LR l9e§h»Kar. ‘2220.»fUnited
India Insurance Co. vttd..iYs§f’§etr5>Lakshmamma &
others}, whereina thigh §onrtU held ;that a lorry
uniaden weight of §hich gees net egeeed 7,500 kg. is
a light eotorfltehiclaiahd.it is also a transport
vehicle and a person she holds a licence to drive a
light motor vehicles dis authorised to drive such
igehicle” and the Insurance Company .is liable. He
also relied span the decision of this court reported
l7*in 2GOlVACJ:9l3 {New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
.-f}B,V.Paramesh~ and others], wherein the driver
‘t possessed driving licence to drive heawy passenger
‘”f;ye§i¢ie but he was driving heavy goods vehicle
ViӢAnnladen weight of both the vehicles exceeds 12,000
Vi=::kg. and they both come within the definition of
D4
10
‘transport vehicle’ and i1: the circumstances, this
Court held that the person holding driving licence
of heavy passenger vehicle is nowhere debarred or
precluded to drive heavy goods vehicle ,sndJJtheW_
insurance company is liable. Furtherd in flthefi
decision reported in ILR 2003″ Rare llofillfllfinitedt.
India Insurance Co. Ltd.’ Vsljaslslfiukharam iésél
Another] this Court while considering the definition
of light motor vehicle held pthat_ it ‘incledes a
transport vehicle or omnihusg_f$o also, the Division
Bench of this court in the decision reported in ILR
2000 Kar. leogiitfirted India insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Shivanna and étfietgj.§¢$§eaeting the definition of
the light eater vehicle gag held that a vehicle the
nnladen weight é§,ehict does not exceed 7500 kgs. is
lap light inotorfl vehicle and it would include a
transport vehicle also. So also, he relied upon the
x” decision reported in AIR 2068 Supreme Court 1418
.-fj§Nétional.lnsurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa
V[“ues§ri§f; Ors.}, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held
. i”fihat the light motor vehicle covers light passenger
Vh”d_carriege vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle
Vfand driver possessing LMV licence cannot be said not
to possess effective licence to chive matador van
t4.
12
the licence at Ex.A10 Clause (d) deals with the
Light Motor Vehicles and a seal has been fixed
stating “Light Motor Vehicle, Non~Transport’.W7,So,
as could be seen from the licence iesue§.io¢_x
19.03.2002, the petitioner is entitled htg far;vé*i
light motor vehicle, ncn~transpQrt. hltgia {elegant 7
to note that the accident in qaestion occnrredfion’
05.05.2003, whereas the decisions referred;te above
are much earlier to the amendment to the M.V. Act.
The Hon’ble Apex Court int; eeciaionmrehorted in CDJ
2008 so 976 [New ,:naiéfi’§§a$t§apce~ ca. Ltd. Vs.
Roshanben.”Rahemanahax Fakir'”&~~another} took into
consideration the’fiecision in AIR 2008 Supreme Court
1418 and distingniehed:the~eaid case and observed;
V 3″it”;fi was noticed that the
trfiicvisicne cf the Act have undergone a
‘.¢han§éQ3 The definition of light motor
vehicle? Vnould not include a light
transport vehicle. In that case,
xkeepinsg in View the date on which the
ceaccident took place, it was held:
“From what has been noticed
hereinbefore, it is evident that
transport vehicle has now been
substituted for ‘medium goods vehicle’
A
13
and ‘heavy goods vehicle’. The light
motor vehicle continued, at the
relevant point of time, to cover both,*W
light passenger carriage vehicle aedu”i”
light goods carriage vehicle. A d;i§e:’f’
who had a valid licence ~to=.driveihai
light motor vehicle, therefore, .was”
authorized to drive :a light goodsfld
vehicle as well”.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in this decision took into
consideration the, definition ref “t;§5s§¢rt vehicle
and where the driser wesiholdinoie”licence to drive
a three wheeler}! as :££¢ hseidf licence does not
include thel driying ‘ofW é ‘trahsport vehicle or a
commercialg eehicle Sandi held that the Insurance
Company is not liable to gay compensation. In para
513,of_the fludgment; it took into consideration the
aspects regarding the types of the vehicles and also
iloAvto the amendeents to the M.V.Act and ultimately came
7i to the conclfision that the Insurance Company is not
::liehle= in Ncase if the driver was not holding a
V specific licence to drive the vehicle concerned.
12. In the context of these principles, if the
tfacte are looked into, the registration certificate
reveals that the vehicle in question is an ambulance
k/\
14
and admittedly it is a transport vehicle. _The
licence issued to the claimant is in respect otaa
light motor vehicle non–transport. He feasf not “_
holding a licence to drive a transport vehicle and eru.
specific contention was raises flinj the {writtenh
statement and the required docunents were ggaaueéal
including the driving licence iahdeh in lithe
circumstances, it has to be helfi that the claimant
was not holding the proper ~licencei to drive the
vehicle and therefore, the insnrancextompany is not
liable to :1”
13.2 The ilearned–,coonsel for the respondent
further submitted that in respect of the claim for
damages to the fehicleg the owner.of the vehicle had
fmade a {claims before” the District Consumer Forum,
which held that the Insurance Company is responsible
i”.V_to pay the dafiases and that the said Judgment of the
l, Qistrict Consumer Forum was confirmed by the State
,hConsnmer Forum modifying the quantum of compensation
tbs ans holoing the Insurance Company responsible to pay
the compensation to the owner. In this context, the
a”, learned counsel submits that when the Insurance
V Company accepted the liability and did not challenge::
15
the Order of the State Consumer Forum, cannot plead
exemption from the liability on the ground” of
improper licence.
14. It is relevant to note that thialCoertiisn
bound by the decisions of the H¢h?bie.3§ex<o§¢;fla§a°.
not that of the State Consumer Forunrl The nere facti
that the State Consumer fiornm. held: tné},ih§fi2a§ce
Company liable for damages to the vehicle cannot be
a ground now to hold that the fhenrahce Company is
responsible to 'indemnify C;§e,j¢iaim:5§§a pay the
compensation -:tof:gthe_rgclai$ante:V In the
circumstances{"7 taking \_into consideration the
decision referred_tohaboyeaand the provisions of the
M.V. Act and the facts on hand, I am of the opinion
gtnat the ;nsurance”€ompany is not liable to pay the
compensation ano it is the owner of the vehicle, who
i*_V_has to pay the heme to the claimants.
15g. Sol far as quantum of compensation is
‘. concerned, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner
‘No has ntaten into consideration the percentage of
diaahility as 70% and rightly considered the wages
hgloh the basis of the available material and adopting
the appropriate relevant factor considering the age
BL
16
of the claimant, has awarded compensation of
Rs.2,84,659*OO with interest at 12% from 28.08.2QO3
till the deposit. The perusal of Section ejhkfiiiefs
the W.C.Act provides the payment of cenfieng%%&pnfl«,
within a period of one month from the eate in fair,
due and the interest at 12% is payabie is éréh tgée
said date. In the circumstenoes;>the_clainent is
entitled to the amount of loonpensationitwihh 12%
interest from 11.07.20fié i.e.g one nonth after the
adjudieation of the ‘claim hhh “t$§g Compensation
Commissioner. ;”So; far? as’ the; eelenlation of the
compensation*assessnent,of the income and adoption
of the relevent_faotorg the Commissioner has taken
into consideration.thehefiidence of the doctor and
has cone * to “‘a-_ right conclusion. In the
Circumstances, vI answer point No.1 in negative,
point Vegffirmative and proceed to pass the
“‘f911ow:ng:;’i.?
ORDER
–X hihe appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Award
hR’»_u of éempensation passed by the Workmen’s Compensation
fl”;éonmissioner dated 11.06.2004 is modified
exonerating the Insurance Cempany from the liability
BL
17
and directing the 2″” srespondent to pay the
compensation of Rs.2,84,659mOO with interest at 12%
frem 11.07.2004 till its deposit. After
of the compensation amount by the Diree£0;fE;S.R;e
Hospital, Beliarya [2″d respondehg herein}; fifieeeémee
shall be paid to the claimenpe fl’: e§espofidenfi
herein]. No costs.
Ksm*