S.N. Variava JUDGMENT
S.N. Variava, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard parties.
3. These Appeals are against a Judgment dated 17th September, 1999 passed by the High Court of Karanataka and a Judgment dated 22nd August, 2000 by which a Review Petition was dismissed.
4. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
On 4th December, 1995 at about 2.30 p.m. one Chand Pasha and Moinuddin were returning to the village Halbarga from village Ashtoor. While they were walking on the road a tractor bearing No. KA-39/M-3 came from the direction of Bidar. On seeing the tractor Chand Pasha raised his hand to stop it as there was a ditch. However the driver could not control the tractor and it dashed against these two persons. As a result of this Chand Pasha dies on the spot.
5. The legal representatives of deceased Chand Pasha lodged a claim Petition No. 12 of 1996 before the Additional MACT. Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bidar. They claimed a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. By its Award dated 12th August 1998 MACT held that the accident was due to a rash and negligent driving of the drive. It awarded compensation in favour of the claimants in a sum of Rs. 2,07,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. The Insurance Company, (the Respondent herein) was directed to pay the amount.
6. The Insurance Company filed an Appeal before the High Court Before the High Court it was contended that the driver had a valid licence to drive a tractor only. It was contended that the tractor had a trailer attached to it, which was filled with stones. it was contended that therefore the tractor was used as a goods vehicle. It was contended that the drive of the tractor had no licence to drive a goods vehicle and therefore it must be held that the drive had no valid driving licence. These contentions found favour with the High Court, who, in the impugned Judgment, held that as a trailer was attached to the tractor it became a transport vehicle. It was held that the driver, who had a licence to drive a tractor, could not be said have valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. The High Court on this reasoning absolved the Insurance Company. The High Court held that the owner was liable to pay the entire amount, awarded by the Tribunal, to the Claimants. As mentioned above, the High court also dismissed the Review Petition. Hence this Appeal by the owner.
7. During the pendency of this Appeal, pursuant to Orders of this Court, the Appellant has paid the amounts awarded to the Claimants. The Appellant however seeks to have the question of law decided and to get reimbursement from the Insurance Company.
8. Mr. S.C. Sharda appearing for the Respondent Insurance Company drew attention of this Court to the definitions of the terms "goods carriage", "tractor", "trailer" and "transport vehicle" in Sections 2(14), 2(44), 2(46) and 2(47) respectively of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These reads as follows:
"2(14) "goods carriage" means any motor vehicle constru........