- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4755 MFA No. 102906 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 102907 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102906 OF 2014 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102907 OF 2014 IN M.F.A. NO.102906 OF 2014 BETWEEN: MUKKANNA S/O. DURGAPPA HARIJAN, AGE: ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE, R/O: HOUSE NO.HO-F-1, RAILWAY POLICE QUARTERS, MASARI, GADAG. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MALATESH HIPPALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. UMA W/O. SIDDANGOUDA KARIGOUDAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: TAILORING WORK, R/O: H.NO.239, II STAGE, MANJUNATH NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, AT: HUBLI. 3. RAVIKUMAR S/O. MUKKANNA HARIJAN, AGE: ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O:F-1, RAILWAY QUARTERS, MASARI, GADAG-582101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S. KUKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 APPEARED THROUGH VC; R3 – NOTICE SERVED.) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4755 MFA No. 102906 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 102907 of 2014 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.08.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.45/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HUBLI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN M.F.A. NO.102907 OF 2014 BETWEEN: MUKKANNA S/O. DURGAPPA HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE, R/O: HOUSE NO.HO-F-1, RAILWAY POLICE QUARTERS, MASARI, GADAG. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MALATESH HIPPALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MASTER MOHIT GIRISH P., AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR, R/BY HIS GRAND MOTHER, SMT. UMA W/O. SIDDANAGOUDA KARIGOUDAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: TAILORING WORK, R/O: H.NO.239, II STAGE, MANJUNATH NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, AT: HUBLI. 3. RAVIKUMAR S/O. MUKKANNA HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: F-1, RAILWAY QUARTERS, MASARI, GADAG-582101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S. KUKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 APPEARED THROUGH VC; R3 – NOTICE SERVED.) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4755 MFA No. 102906 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 102907 of 2014 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.08.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.46/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HUBLI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The above appeals are filed by the owner of the vehicle calling in question the judgment and award dated 16.8.2014 passed in MVC Nos.45/2010 and 46/2010, by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hubli1. 2. The sole contention urged by learned counsel Sri Malatesh Hippali, appearing along with Sri Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle is that in the present case the driver of the vehicle possessed a learners’ licence and that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurer from payment of compensation and fastening liability on the owner of the vehicle, who was arrayed as the 1st respondent before the Tribunal. Reliance is placed on the judgment of 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4755 MFA No. 102906 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 102907 of 2014 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Swaran Singh2. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel Sri S.K.Kayakamath justifying the award of the Tribunal submits that the definition of ‘driving licence’ as stipulated under Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19883 excludes a learner’s licence and hence, the driver of the vehicle not being duly licenced, the Tribunal was justified in exonerating the insurer. It is further contended that even as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh2, at best the insurer would be liable to deposit the compensation awarded with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted that an undertaking be secured in the present appeals from the owner of the vehicle in that regard. 4. Learned counsel Sri B.S.Kukanagoudar, appearing for the claimant supports the contentions put forth by the owner of the vehicle. 2 (2004) 3 SCC 297. 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act’. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4755 MFA No. 102906 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 102907 of 2014 5. The submissions of learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the Tribunal was justified in exonerating the insurer from payment of compensation by fastening liability on the owner of the vehicle?” 6. The finding of the Tribunal on negligence and quantum of compensation is not under challenge and have attained finality. 7. It is forthcoming that the accident occurred on 09.09.2010. It is forthcoming from the testimony of the RTO, Gadag (RW.1) and the DL extract (Ex.R.1) that the driver of the vehicle was issued with a learner’s licence on 27.3.2010 and a permanent licence on 13.9.2010. That the Tribunal while considering the contention of the insurer that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance has recorded a finding that there is no material to the effect that the 3rd respondent has obtained permanent licence after expiry of 30 days. Further, reference was made to Rule 3(b) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules that the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4755 MFA No. 102906 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 102907 of 2014 person holding learner’s licence has to be accompanied by an instructor holding effective driving licence. The Tribunal has held that the 3rd respondent - the driver of the vehicle has no effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has further held that the 2nd respondent/insurer has proved that there is violation of policy of insurance and hence, is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent. 8. It is relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh2, has held as follows: The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163 A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4755 MFA No. 102906 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 102907 of 2014 (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub- section (2)(a)(ii) of section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4755 MFA No. 102906 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 102907 of 2014 driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured under section 149(2) of the Act. (vii) The question as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver, (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. (Emphasis supplied.) 9. Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Senior Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited, Ramdev Galli, Belgaum vs. Shri Jyotiba Appaji Shigate and others4, at paragraph No.28 has held as follows: “28. On the other hand, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble High Courts in the case of Mandar Madhav Tambe, (stated supra), Mahamooda (stated supra), Sheela Devi and others (stated supra) and Shivapal Singa (stated 4 2020(1) Kar.L.J. 656. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4755 MFA No. 102906 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 102907 of 2014 supra) the licence held by respondent No.1, even though it was a learner’s licence, but it is a valid licence. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Even the Central Motor Vehicle Rules strictly contemplates accompanying of an instructor in a motor vehicle, but excludes the motorcycle. Therefore, I hold that a learner’s licence is also a valid licence, the rider or the learner need not accompany any instructor for motorcycle, as required in case of four wheeler motor vehicle, which require instructor. Therefore, the contention taken up by the insurer that the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence and she was holding only learner’s licence to ride a motorcycle on the road, cannot be accepted. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has rightly concluded that the learner’s licence held by respondent No.1 is a valid licence and has rightly fastened the liability on the insurer. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal regarding fastening of liability on the insurer does not call for any interference of this Court. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in favour of the claimant and against the insurer.” (Emphasis supplied.) 10. Although, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that the definition under the M.V.Act itself excludes the holder of a learner’s licence, having regard to the enunciation of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh2, the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurer from the payment of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4755 MFA No. 102906 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 102907 of 2014 compensation is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the negative. 11. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i) Both the appeals are allowed; ii) The judgment and awards dated 16.8.2014 passed in MVC Nos.45/2010 and 46/2010, respectively, by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hubli, are modified only to the extent of holding that the insurer of the vehicle who was arrayed as the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal is liable to pay the compensation awarded together with accrued interest; iii) The judgment and awards of the Tribunal in all other respects remain unaltered; - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4755 MFA No. 102906 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 102907 of 2014 iv) The amount deposited by the appellant in the above appeals be refunded to the appellant; v) Registry is directed to transmit the TCRs to the Tribunal forthwith; vi) Modified decree to be drawn accordingly; Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE MRK CT: UMD. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45