'.1 [g-9' I 3:
__ "BANGALORE.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA A >
DATED THIS THE 24%! DAY OF FEBRUARY 20 20-1
BEFORE A A '
THE RONELE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G...R'A§a?{VE:SH4_ T4 VV
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL 1\;O';3'1< 1 99
BE)! WEEN:
MOHAMMAD DAWALSAB
S/O.NAI*31SAB AGNI @ AGN1.
AGE :30 YEARS, "
OCC:DRI\/ER
R/ONAGANOOR
TQ:SHORAP__UR; A V_
DIST ; OUL£:sAR_CA.. V
V .... V. ' ...APPELLANT
{BY SR1; 1.R."E.uRADAR. AO.VOCA'rE)
AND
1. SANDENAWM S';'OV.VMEr.1AEOOESAB KOLAR.
V AGED{ABOUT21' YEARS. _
* QACCv:'S"FU;_DAENT, R/O':*E--'EERAPUR
*rQ:MOEODEB.1I%iAL
*NOW RESJEAINC @-- AMALIHAL
TQ:S-:a:ORA_R1S;RV.'VV---'"
O1STR1CT : G{3_I.i3ARGA.
_ THE MANACER. IFFCOK TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO.L'I'D
- _ N'O,.41';~4C1I FLOOR, CRISTU COMPLEX.
' LAVELLE ROAD
V RESPONDENTS
‘AHNOIKA,/:{§3_/2410 drove
Ix}
(BY SR1. SANJAY A PATiL, ADVOC-ATIC
FOR r§1’g§’=.sR1.
SUDARSMAN ‘M. A..DvOCA”r1«’: FOR R2) ~
MFA FILED U/S 1.73m OF MV ACT A3;éAIV:\T’s”Tf”‘_
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 3.6.2009 I_3.A.SSE{)”–.IN«. MVC, ”
NO.1245/O8 ON THE FILE OF x11T1~1V-ADDL. ;yiOTOR’_va:H:CL-1:,
ACCIDENT COURT, SHORAPUR PARTL=Y AL1,Ow’–1NO.’ CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND AwA_T_{D1NO_.,AMOU1«1T’–.CO1?’
RS.1,65,042/~ WITH COST OF’ RS.:3.QaO/» AND 1N’T*E:’R;:sf1’VVVAT s%_>
P.A.FROM THE DATE OF PET1T1ON*T1j;L.. REA1;–1sA<TI_ON§';
This Miseeiianeous .F'i~rst, CID-{Ding Oh Tor Orders
this day. the Court 4de1ivere'd~'LhAe –:fO1{!OVvvi"1'1gA:7»" _
J U D G M E N __
This /fi{1r'ive1"§assai1ir1gg the Judgment
and AwardVv:'d_ate_d by the X11 Add1., M.A.C.T.,
at Shorapur
Claimant. along with one abdul
R;u,o;;.'~;gzaote1qo Motor Cycle bearing NOKAA33-H-8245
'-.,.,frOm .I{éAhCha1.ai;:3\f:i to Gundapur viliage. At. that time, the
..h_1C'_f.e_p'pe11ant 'fleeing the driver Of the Tumffum bearing
the same in a rash and negligent
3/
5. T he tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner
on the ground that the driver of the vehicle in qt1es’t.io:n..i_had
only licence to drive a light. motor vehicle and was”notiihoidiiigd
the valid and effective driving licence “to—.driv:e tirandspoirtdi
vehicle.
6. in this regard learned for the
owner has taken me thro1i*;§h the the Apex Court
reported in 2008 SCVV:906.y_”in”d.t}_1e””.:Cdse of National
Insurance Co., Anndppa –£rdp;ad:Nesar’ia & Others. in
the said Juidgmexnth
not having been
defined “‘*:i_nider”‘th’e’ i’—-\V(.i’t.,.d’the definition of a “light
rnc;_to’i’e..vehie1,e”‘ ‘1cie’a1″1y indicated that it takes
.timbra’ge,’Vboth a transport: vehicle and a
vehicle and proceeded to hoid that
“the M’ot”orVA’eI=Vehic1es Act, 1988 was enacted to
coi1so–iidiite and amend the law relating to motor
.. ve1’1icies, which is a complete Code and referred to
*SE3:C’ti0i”1 2 of the Act which defines ‘heavy goods
fivehicie’ to mean any goods carriage, the gross
motor vehicle” continued, at the relevant, point. of___
time, to cover both, a light passenger
vehicle’ and a ‘light goods carriage \r_e’li1’ele~’V~._l,:
Therefore, the driver who had a valid _li_oe’noe:.A_l.t~ol._
drive a light motor vehicle was :.aiithoris”ed
a light goods vehicle as well,
was held that the eonter1ti’on.._oI’ lilrgstirrierl
the driver not being qtialified’ to light
transport vehicle, was not ”
7. Per Contlfét-,:dl€al’rl1t3d'(lQL1D.SE’~l”_’§QI’. the insurer assails
the impugned
8. In the passe=1on.__hand._th.¢ vehicle in question is said to
be goods carria.ge~vehi–elejWhieh is involved in the commission
ofthe offe:nee;.
after awarding compensation saddled
liab1l.ity _o~1iti.1e owner/driver of the vehicle in question.
in View of the legal position that has been stated by
“-»_””t.h’e_}\peX. Court in the above said decision, there should not
ll;e:”11.e.eessai”ily an endorsement of the driving of the non~
ll”
W
transport vehicle. if he holds a licence for light motor vehicle
he also eqlmlly cover light’ goods carriage vehicle. T]’lC”?i’.L*..>I’l€€?C1
not be any specific distinction in this regard.
10. In the circumstances, liability
Tribunal on the owner/ driver is absolved’ ‘and t;ile._”‘san.}e’is to
be indemnified by the insurer since aslionthe date:of°aceiden’t,
there was said to be valid lI1SuI’e1′}’}.V(V’]€3 eove’r21_gei.–V-I “I’l*i_e defence
taken by the insurer that”‘t_he1fle. effective
driving licence to drive transp.ol’it4’\re}lit?le’ f:.é’._llI1Ql’. befdCCe,pted.
In the result, the zvlbbdesl “isV_.Val1o\2lredjjsElddl_inéthe liability
on the Insurance Co., “liability on the
OVE/I161′ .
Sol/-3
JUDGE