- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898 MFA No. 22240 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22240 OF 2013 (MV-) BETWEEN: SANNA DURUGAPPA S/O. HULUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 17 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN HULUGAPPA S/O. KONDAIAH, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MAGIMAVINAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: H.B.HALLI, DIST: BELLARY. …APPELLANT (BY KUM. RESHMA MADIVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M B SUNIL KUMAR S/O. BALAKRISHNA, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO. KA-01/AB-930 R/O: POGINUTTI ROAD, 4TH CROSS BESIDES JANI FLOOR MILL, CHITRADURGA. 2. S MOHANRAJ S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGE:MAJOR, OCC:OWNER OF LORRY, BEARING NO. KA-01/AB-930, R/O: MADAKARIPURA, CHALLAKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA. 3. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., INSURED AT VIJAYASHREE, OPP. NANJUNDESWARA PETROL BUNK DAVANAGERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA, HAVING IT S BRANCH OFFICE, DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, STATION ROAD, HOSPET. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V.YAJI, ADV. FOR R3; R1 AND R2 ARE SERAVED) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.17 15:46:06 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898 MFA No. 22240 of 2013 THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF M.V. ACT., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MVC NO.154/2011 OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT HOSPET CUM MACT-IV AT HOSPET DATED 12.08.2011 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 20,000/-EXCEPT THE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the appellant-claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 12.08.2011 passed in MVC No.154/2011 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet cum MACT-IV, Hospet. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 24.12.2007, the petitioner and others were proceeding on a bus bearing Reg.No.KA-25/F-901 from Raral Thanda to Hospet on NH-13. Near Gollarhalli, the driver of a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01/AB-930 came from - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898 MFA No. 22240 of 2013 the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, and collided with the bus. Due to the said impact, the petitioner and others sustained grievous injuries. Thus, the petitioner and others filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in a road traffic accident. 4. Respondent No.1- the driver and Respondent No.3-the Insurance Company, appeared before the Tribunal. Despite service of notice, respondent No.2-the owner remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.1 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that respondent No.1 was possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and the policy was in force. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1. 5. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898 MFA No. 22240 of 2013 claim petition. It is contended that the claim petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is contended that the drivers of the lorry in question and the bus, both were not having the valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3- Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, clubbed all the claim petitions, and framed the common issues and additional issues. 7. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 5, and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the respondents did not lead any oral evidence, however, marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded global compensation of Rs.5,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898 MFA No. 22240 of 2013 date of the petition till realization, held that the owner and the driver of the lorry in question are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and directed the owner of the lorry in question to deposit the compensation amount. The claim petitions against the Insurance Company were dismissed. 8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and liability passed in MVC No.154/2011, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective license to drive LMV transport, as of the date of the accident. She submits that the said issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668. The said aspect - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898 MFA No. 22240 of 2013 was not considered by the Tribunal, and committed an error in dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company. She also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and there is a breach of policy conditions. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The points, that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898 MFA No. 22240 of 2013 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and the injuries sustained by the petitioner. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner has produced the charge sheet, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Reg. Liability: 15. The Insurance Company has taken a specific defense that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. He possessed LMV transport license and the driver cannot drive heavy goods vehicle. The said issue was covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN (SUPRA). The Hon’ble Apex Court held that a person possessing a license to drive LMV is competent to drive heavy goods transportation vehicle, and no endorsement is required to drive the same. This - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898 MFA No. 22240 of 2013 judgment was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of JAGADISH KUMAR SOOD VS UNITED INDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. and Others reported in AIR 2018 SC 2096. Thus, the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company. Admittedly, as of the date of the accident, the policy was valid. In view of the above discussion, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Reg. Quantum of compensation: 16. The petitioner was examined in ‘P’ series. The petitioner has suffered permanent disability. To prove the permanent disability, the petitioner has not examined the doctor. From the perusal of the wound certificate produced by the petitioner, it discloses that the petitioner has suffered simple injuries. The Tribunal considering the injuries suffered by the petitioner has awarded a global compensation of Rs.5,000/-, however, it is on the lower side. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898 MFA No. 22240 of 2013 17. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization and the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and the award dated 12.08.2011 passed in MVC No.154/2011 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet cum MACT-IV, Hospet is modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.20,000/- as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898 MFA No. 22240 of 2013 interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the amount. (iv) However, the petitioner is not entitled for the interest for the delayed period of 547 days in filing the appeal. (v) The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. (vi) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (vii) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3