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

Case: Mahantesh v. Netharavati

Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty

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

Court Observation: “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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“The compensation awarded to the claimants shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.”

Previous Posts

Party Having Right of Appeal Does Not Have Corresponding Right to Insist For Consideration of Appeal by Forum That Was No Longer In Existence: Supreme Court

No Public Right Is Superior To Defence Of The Country: Uttarakhand HC Dismisses Challenge To Land Acquisition For ITBP Near LAC

Appointment under Outstanding Sportsperson Quota Can Be Made Only When There Is ‘Direct Affiliation’ With Indian Olympic Association: Rajasthan HC

Section 138 NI Act – Complainant Not Expected To Initially Give Evidence of Financial Capacity Unless Accused Disputes It In Reply Notice: Supreme Court

Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – True Test Is Whether Appellate Court Can Pronounce Judgment without Considering Additional Evidence Sought To Be Adduced: Supreme Court

Acquittal Based on Benefits of Doubt in Serious Crime Cannot Make Candidate Eligible for Public Employment Download Judgement