Insurance Company Not Liable To Pay Compensation If Heavy Goods Vehicle Is Driven By Person Holding Light Motor Vehicle License: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajit Shetty while partly allowing an appeal filed by one Mahantesh, owner of a tipper lorry said,

"The vehicle in question which is categorised as a heavy goods vehicle comes within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the gross vehicle weight undisputedly exceeds 12000 kg. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the offending vehicle was used in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore the insurer of the offending vehicle was not liable to pay the compensation."

Petitioners submissions:

The appellant had challenged the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 03.10.2018. It was submitted by the petitioners that the Tribunal had erred in exonerating the liability of the insurer of the offending lorry, though as on the date of accident, the insurance policy issued by the 3rd respondent insurer was in force.

Further it was said that the Tribunal had exonerated the liability of the insurer only on the ground that the driver of the offending lorry did not have valid and effective driving licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle as on the date of accident. However, admittedly the driver of the offending tipper lorry possessed a light motor vehicle driving licence and therefore since the unladen weight of the offending lorry being lesser than 7,500 kg, the offending vehicle is required to be considered as a light motor vehicle and the liability to pay compensation is required to be saddled on the insurer of the offending tipper lorry.

The appellants relied on B Register extract report which states that the unladen weight of the vehicle as could be seen from is only 6,190 kg.

The petitioner also claimed that the deceased was aged about 2 years as on the date of accident and therefore the claimants are entitled only for a sum of Rs. 2,75,000 as compensation having regard to the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others V/s National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 256.

Insurance Company opposed the plea:

It was said that the driver of the lorry did not possess licence to drive heavy goods vehicle and as on the date of accident, he was only holding a light motor vehicle driving licence. The vehicle in question is a transport vehicle and the gross weight of the vehicle is much more than 7,500 kg. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer from its liability.

Court findings:

The bench relied on the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, wherein it was held that a transport vehicle and omnibus, gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7,500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and the holder of driving licence to drive class of light motor vehicle as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg.

The bench observed,

"The word "gross vehicle weight" as defined in Section 2(15) of the Act means, in respect of any vehicle, the total weight of the vehicle and load certified and registered by the registering authority as permissible for that vehicle. Ex.R1 which is the 'B' register extract of the offending vehicle would go to show that the registered laden weight of the said vehicle is 16,200 kg which is much more than 7,500 kg."

It added,

"Therefore, the gross weight of the offending vehicle if considered as 16,200 kg, the said vehicle is required to be considered as a heavy goods vehicle in view of Section 2(16) of the Act, which states that any goods carriage the gross weight of which exceeds 12,000 kg would be considered as heavy goods vehicle."

Further the court referring to the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another V/s Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, Civil Appeal No.6902 of 2021 disposed of on 16.11.2021, wherein the court increased the notional income to Rs 25,000 and after applying the multiplier of '15' as prescribed under Schedule II of Section 163-A of the Act, a compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency.

The bench said, "In the present case, the same principle is required to be applied and a compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- is therefore awarded to the claimants towards loss of dependency. Towards loss of filial consortium, the claimants are entitled for a sum of `40,000/- each and towards funeral expenses, they are entitled for another sum of `15,000/-. Therefore altogether they are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 4,70,000/- as against Rs. 5,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal."

It added, "The compensation awarded to the claimants shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation."

Case Title: Mahantesh v. Netharavati

Case No: M.F.A. No.100096/2019 (MV)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 74

Date of Order: 25th Day Of February, 2022

Appearance: Advocate B.M.Patil for appellant; Advocate I.C.Patil, FOR R3; Advocate Subhash J.Baddi, R4

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment