NAGAPPA HOSBAYYA NAIK Vs. BENEDICTA D'SOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-claimant made claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsi in MVC No.145 of 2008 claiming compensation for having suffered injuries in the motor vehicle accident. It is stated in the claim petition that on 21st June 2008 while he was going on the left side on Sirsi-Kumta Road, the offending vehicle petrol tanker bearing registration No.KA 19-C 3357 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, as a result of which he suffered multiple injuries. The Tribunal, awarded compensation of Rs.1,57,300/- with 6% interest per annum and fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant has filed an appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation. Against the order of the Tribunal fastening the liability on her, the owner has preferred cross objection with a prayer to set aside/modify the order of the Tribunal and to fasten the liability on the Insurance.

(2.) Since both, the appeal and the cross-objections, arise out of common judgment passed by the Tribunal, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the cross-objector submits that the Tribunal fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle by accepting the submissions made by the Insurance to the effect that as on the date of the accident as provided under the Proviso to Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that in case if the driver of the vehicle is driving the vehicle carrying goods hazardous and dangerous to human life, an endorsement has to be made in the licence to that effect which endorsement would be valid for a period of one year, but the driver of the offending vehicle was not having such endorsement in the driving licence. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the endorsement was not available in the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, and hence, Tribunal held that there is contravention of the conditions of policy and the liability was fastened on the owner of the vehicle to satisfy the award. The learned counsel submits that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive heavy transport vehicle for the past ten years. He submits that initially the licence was issued to driver in No. FDL-1056/B-61/P-40/94- 95 for a period having validity between 24th November 1984 and 23rd November 1987 and vide EDL No.1164/95-96, the driver was authorized to drive Heavy transport vehicle with effect from 05th February 1996. After completion of three years, the driver, from time to time, had got renewed the licence; and one such renewal was made vide PR No.13/96-97 and the endorsement clarifies that the driver is also authorized to drive transport vehicle carrying goods of hazardous and dangerous in nature to human life with effect from 16th April 1996 which was valid up to 12th April 1997. Further, vide endorsement made in PR No.376- 97-98, the endorsement dated 16th April 1996 to drive hazardous or dangerous goods was renewed from 06th October 1997 to 26th August 1998. It was further renewed from 05th January 1999 to 11th November 1999 vide PR No.378/98-99. This clearly shows that from time to time, the driver was in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle and was also authorised to drive the Transport Vehicle carrying goods of hazardous and dangerous nature to human life. One such endorsement was with effect from 05th February 2002 to 09th October 2002. Thereafter, an application was made for renewal and accordingly, it was renewed by issuing endorsement dated 26th July 2007 renewing the validity from 26th July 2007 to 21st March 2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel that under the proviso to Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the licence to drive transport vehicle carrying goods of hazardous and dangerous nature to human life is issued in the nature of endorsement in the driving licence which would be valid for a period of one year, and the renewal would also be by means of an endorsement in the driving licence validating it for a period of one year. Contrary to the said proviso, the renewal was made for less than one year after expiry of renewal on 21st March 2008 and the driver made an application for renewal of licence; and in the interregnum, the accident has taken place. At this juncture, it is submitted by the learned counsel that it is undisputed fact that the driver was in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive heavy transport vehicle and that the accident that occurred was not due to want of skill to drive such class of vehicle since the driver was driving heavy transport vehicle for the past ten years; and secondly, as on the date of accident the offending vehicle did not contain goods of hazardous or dangerous nature to human life. The learned counsel further submits that though the Insurance has taken the contention that the vehicle was carrying goods of hazardous and dangerous nature to human life, but has failed to prove that the there was goods of hazardous or dangerous nature to human life was present in the vehicle at the time of accident. Under this circumstance, on two counts, the learned counsel for the owner submits to set aside the order of the Tribunal, viz. that as on the date of accident the driver was having valid and effective driving licence though the endorsement to drive the vehicle carrying goods of hazardous and dangerous nature to human life had not been renewed after 21st March 2008 though an application is made to that effect. In this regard, he submits that if one year is computed for the purpose of proviso to Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the endorsement which was issued from 26th July 2007 should have expired on 25th July 2008 and if that is the case, then the driver would have had valid endorsement to drive the transport vehicle with goods hazardous and dangerous nature to human life as on the date of accident. His second count is that the insurance has not proved the fact that the accident was due to negligence or unskilledness on the part of the driver. Under these circumstances, he prays that it is to be held that the driver was having valid and effective driving licence and also was having skill and competence to drive the heavy transport vehicle and further the accident that occurred was beyond any human control. Further, the learned counsel emphasises much that the competent authority to renew the endorsement under proviso to Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act has no discretion to renew for a period of less than one year or more than a year and under the circumstance, the learned counsel submits that the order of the Tribunal is in error on fact and law and the same is to be set aside.