- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12875 MFA No. 2371 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2371 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GIC LTD., SRI LAKSHMI COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, BHARATHI STREET, OMALURU MAIN ROAD, SWRNAPURI, SELAM - 04, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, EAST WING, 4TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KRISHNE GOWDA DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(A). JAYAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 1(B). RAMESH S/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 1(C). GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 2. NAGEGOWDA S/O CHIKKARANGEGOWDA DEAD BY HIS LRS Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12875 MFA No. 2371 of 2015 2(A). MANJUNATH S/O LATE NAGEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2(B). UMESH S/O LATE NAGEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT KADABAHALLI VILLAGE, BINDIGAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 432. 3. SHIVEGOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKERANGEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 4. KUMARI ASHWINI D/O BASAVEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 5. KUM. K.B. ARUNA, D/O BASAVEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT KADABAHALLI VILLAGE, BINDIGAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 432. 6. NANJAMMA @ YASHODAMMA W/O THIMMEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT KADABAHALLI VILLAGE, BINDIGAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 432. 7. JAYAMMA W/O RANGEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT ALISANDRA VILLAGE, BINDIGAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 432. 8. MANIYAMMA W/O SHANKAREGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT MANIYURU VILLAGE, BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 432. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12875 MFA No. 2371 of 2015 9. R. PERRYA SAMI NO.7,RCC 206-261 S.G. MUTT ROAD, CHAMARAJ PET, BANGALORE - 560 029 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. SURENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A AND B), R3, R6 TO R8 (ABSENT); R1(A) TO R1(C), R4 AND R5 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.37/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, NAGAMANGALA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,90,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT The Insurance Company is before this Court questioning the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.37/2010 dated 13.11.2014 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Nagamangala. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 27.04.2010 at about 11.00 a.m. while the deceased was proceeding towards her residence by walking on the left side of the road, the driver of the H.P. Gas tanker lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner came from Bangalore side and dashed against the deceased and the deceased died in the said accident. It is the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12875 MFA No. 2371 of 2015 case of the Insurance Company that as on the date of accident, the driver of the gas tanker was not having a license to drive the gas tanker which is carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous in nature and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal observed that a perusal of Ex.R5 would shows that at the time of accident in question, the driver of the offending gas tanker was having a driving license to drive the heavy transport vehicle. Hence, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and the Tribunal has observed that there is no cogent evidence on record. Hence, in the light of the law laid down in Swaran Singh's case, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from the liability. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits the Tribunal had failed to consider the fact that while he is driving a tanker lorry carrying gas, he needs to have the license to drive the heavy vehicle carrying hazardous substances. Having taken a note of the fact, the Tribunal ought to have applied the principles of 'Pay and Recovery'. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12875 MFA No. 2371 of 2015 4. Though respondent Nos.2(A & B), 3, 6 to 8 are represented by the Advocate, no representation on behalf of the Advocate. Notice to respondent No. 9 - the owner of the vehicle has held sufficient by the Court and this Court is proceeding to dispose of the matter on the merits. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, perused the material on record. Admittedly, in this case, the driver is driving the tanker lorry which is carrying the goods which is the hazardous substance and for driving the said vehicle, a special license is required. Admittedly, in this case, he is not having such a license to drive that vehicle. In that case, it is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. In that view of the matter, the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others1 case applies to this case and the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation at the first instance then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. i) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 1 2004 ACJ 1 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12875 MFA No. 2371 of 2015 ii) The Insurance Company shall pay the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal at the first instance, then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. iii) Amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal. iv) No costs. v) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT: BHK