Date of Judgement:
25th February 2022
Coram/judge:
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty
Parties to the Case:
Appellant
Shri Mahantesh, S/ O Sangappa Bannimatti
Respondents
Smt. Netharavati, W/ O Basayya Kulkarni
Shri Basayya, S/ O Gurushantayya Kulkarni
Divisional Manager, Cholamandalam M. S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Legal Provisions
- Section 173(1) Of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- it lays down provision for appeal to High courts against an award of tribunal.
- Section 2(15) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-which defines ‘Gross Weight’ as the total weight of the vehicle and load certified and registered by the registering authority as permissible for that vehicle.
- Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988- which lays down special provisions with regard to compensation to be awarded to the aggrieved in case of accidents.
Overview
- A criminal case was registered against the driver of the vehicle (a tipper lorry) on account of an accident caused by the driver while driving it in a negligent and rash manner. Minor child who suffered serious injuries was shifted to the hospital immediately, but she could not survive.
- The claimants, parents of the deceased, had filed a claim for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The said claim was partially allowed and the owner of the vehicle was held liable to pay the compensation and accordingly he was directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal. To which, the present appeal was filed on the ground of liability as well as on the quantum of compensation.
Arguments Advanced by The Appellant
- The Learned counsel for the appellant (owner of vehicle) contended that the tribunal had erred in determining the liability of the insurer of the vehicle. The insurer had been released from his liability only on the ground that the driver of the vehicle didn’t have valid and effective driving licence to drive a heavy vehicle as on the accident date.
- It was submitted that the un-laden weight of the vehicle was lesser than 7500 kg, so it was required to be considered as a LMV(Light Motor Vehicle) and the liability to pay compensation should be shifted to the insurer.
- Citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and ors. v. National Insurance Company Limit&ors.,he contended that the compensation awarded to the claimants is on the higher side. As the deceased was aged about 2 years as on the date of accident, the claimants are entitled only for a sum of Rs. 2,75,000 as compensation.
Arguments Advanced by The Respondents
- The learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the driver of the Vehicle possessed a LMV licence as on the date of accident. The vehicle, being a transport vehicle, weighs much more than 7500 kg on gross basis.
- He contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewanganvs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd, has held that the transport vehicles of which gross weight is more than 7500 kg cannot be considered as LMV.
Issue
- Whether the Motor Vehicle in question be considered as LMV on the basis of unladen weight and hence the liability of compensation be shifted to the insurer of the said vehicle?
- Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is justified or it should be revised as contended by the applicant?
Judgement Analysis
- The Honourable High Court resorted to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, where it was held that only transport vehicle having gross weight less than 7500kg can be considered as LMV and a person holding licence of LMV class would be competent to drive such Vehicle.
- The court found no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal had erred releasing the insurer from liability to compensate and that the Tribunal had properly appreciated the above mentioned judgment.
- The Tribunal was justified in holding that the vehicle was used in violation of the terms of the insurer’s policy. Hence, the insurer was not liable to pay any compensation. The gross weight of the offending vehicle (16200 kg), renders it the category of heavy vehicle.
- The Honourable Court, while considering the amount of compensation, observed that in respect of a non-earning member the compensation was being awarded on the basis of notional income fixed under the act as 15,000/ per annum. Though the Apex Court in a series of judgments has held that this amount was to be enhanced and increased.
- In the case of Kurvan Ali &anr. v. Shyam Kishore Murmu & anr. the deceased child was about 7 years and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had fixed the notional income at Rs. 25,000/- per annum. Further, applying multiplier of ‘15’ as prescribed in Schedule II to Section 163-A, a compensation of Rs. 3,75 ,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency.
- The Court held that it was appropriate to apply the same principle here and a compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- should be awarded to the claimants towards loss of dependency. For loss of filial consortium, both of the claimants were entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-each and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, a total of Rs.4,70 ,000/- as against Rs.590,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal)should be provided as compensation.
- The appellant was directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation with interest before the tribunal within 6 weeks of the present order.
- The order passed by the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, disbursement and deposit etc., was upheld and the appeal was partly allowed with respect to amount of compensation.
Conclusion
The Honourable Court in the present appeal, while relying on leading case laws, reiterated a well-established provision of law regarding the classification of a vehicle as heavy or light motor vehicle category. It was held that when driver of the vehicle doesn’t hold the required class of licence, the insurance company can’t be held liable for compensation towards accident caused by the offending vehicle. Also, in light of a series of leading case laws, the Court adjudicated upon the appropriate amount of compensation to be paid as per the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
