- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3194 MFA No. 3503 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3503 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SAMEER S/O.SYED AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER, SYED S/O.PYREJAN SAB AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT VASANTHA NAGAR HULIYAR TOWN C.N.HALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-522 201 …APPELLANT (BY SRI M.V.MAHESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER SRIRAMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.E-8, EPIP, LR.11 SITAPURA JAIPUR, RAJASTAN-302 022 2. BABUJAN S/O.SHEIK KHALANDAR SAB INDIRANAGAR, HULIYAR C.N.HALLI TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT-522 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A. FOR SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATES FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED V/O.DATED 24.01.2025) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3194 MFA No. 3503 of 2021 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.39/2012 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND XIX MACT, ITINERATE COURT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 22.04.2016 passed in MVC.No.39/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and XIX MACT, Itinerate Court, Chikkanayakanahalli (for short ‘the tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal. 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal. 3. The tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,14,707/- with interest at 6% per annum and directed respondent No.2-owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3194 MFA No. 3503 of 2021 4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side, which calls for interference. Therefore, he seeks to allow the appeal and consequently, enhance the compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent– Insurance Company contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under all heads, in accordance with the material evidence, both oral and documentary and the same does not call for interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the points that arise for consideration in this case are: "i) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a Driving Licence for LMV (NT) to drive a transport vehicle i.e. goods carrying vehicle and any such endorsement is required in the said license to that effect? - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3194 MFA No. 3503 of 2021 ii) Whether the liability fixed on respondent No.2-owner of the offending vehicle is justified? iii) Whether the liability requires to be fastened on respondent No.1-Insurance Company, in view of policy being in force?" 7. The occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle and injuries sustained by the claimant are proved and established by production of documents as per Exs.P1 to P57. 8. During the course of argument, learned counsel for appellant-claimant restricts his argument only to fastening of liability against respondent No.1-Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. However, the petition before the tribunal came to be dismissed as against the Insurance Company. 9. In view of the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the transport vehicle by possessing Driving License to drive LMV (NT) and the same being valid from 18.09.2007 to 09.10.2023, during which period, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3194 MFA No. 3503 of 2021 the accident had occurred, the policy was in force as on the date of occurrence of accident. Under the circumstance, the liability fixed by the tribunal as against respondent No.2, the owner of the offending vehicle may not be correct position of law in view of the judgment laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017)14 SCC 663. 10. In view of the policy being in force as on the date of occurrence of accident, the liability is required to be fastened as against respondent No.1-Insurance Company. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) This appeal is allowed; ii) The judgment and award dated 22.04.2016 passed in MVC.No.39/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and XIX MACT, Itinerate Court, Chikkanayakanahalli, is modified; - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3194 MFA No. 3503 of 2021 iii) With regard to the compensation of Rs.1,14,707/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. as awarded by the tribunal to the claimant, is retained; iv) Dismissal of petition as against respondent No.1- Insurance Company and the liability fastened as against respondent No.2-owner of the offending vehicle by the tribunal, is hereby set aside; v) In view of the policy being in force as on the date of occurrence of accident, the liability is fastened as against respondent No.1-Insurance Company; vi) Respondent No.1-Insurance Company shall pay the compensation of Rs.1,14,707/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; vii) In view of the liability fastened as against respondent No.1-Insurance Company, the petition as against respondent No.2-owner of the offending vehicle stands dismissed; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3194 MFA No. 3503 of 2021 viii) The entire compensation shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant; ix) It is made clear that the appellant-claimant shall not be entitled to the interest for the delayed period; Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50