- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7598 MFA No. 103392 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100021 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103392 OF 2014 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100021 OF 2015 IN MFA NO. 103392 OF 2014: BETWEEN: SIDDAPPA S/O HANAMANT GOMPYAGOL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: WARD NO.3, KURUBAR ONI, MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313 (OWNER OF THE MOTORCYCLE NO.KA-48-J-9382). … APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYASHRI W/O RAMESH TIRKI @ GHATNATTI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MALAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313. 2. KUMAR MANJUNATH S/O RAMESH TIRKI @ GHATNATTI, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MALAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313. 3. KUMARI AISHWARYA D/O RAMESH TIRKI @ GHATNATTI, AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MALAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313. (RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MINOR GUARDIAN AND Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7598 MFA No. 103392 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100021 of 2015 NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1.) 4. MAHALINGAPPA S/O MALLAPPA TIRKI @ GHATNATTI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MALAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313. 5. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BHARATI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY CHANNAMMA BAZAAR, NEAR POLICE STATION, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI, TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 029, (INSURER OF MOTORCYCYLE NO.KA-48-J9382 UNDER ITS POLICY NO.30238573 VALID UP TO 24/05/2011). … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1; SRI. S.K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.09.2014 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.616/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IX, MUDHOL. IN MFA NO. 100021 OF 2015: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYASHRI W/O RAMESH TIRKI @ GHATANATTI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MALAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL. 2. KUMAR MANJUNATH S/O RAMESH TIRKI @ GHATANATTI, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MALAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL. 3. KUMARI AISHWARYA D/O RAMESH TIRKI @ GHATANATTI, AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MALAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7598 MFA No. 103392 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100021 of 2015 4. MAHALINGAPPA S/O MALLAPPA TIRKI @ GHATANATTI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: MALAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL. (THE APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR M/G AND NATURAL MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1). … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SIDDAPPA S/O HANAMANT GOMPYAGOL, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: WARD NO.3, KURUBAR ONI, MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BHARATI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CHANNAMMA BAZAAR, NEAR POLICE STATION, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.09.2014 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.616/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IX, MUDHOL. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7598 MFA No. 103392 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100021 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) MFA No.103392/2014 is filed by the appellant/owner of the motorcycle No.KA-48-J-9382, questioning the liability fastened on him and MFA No.100021/2015 is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 26.09.2014 in MVC No.616/2012 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Mudhol (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. The Tribunal while awarding compensation has fastened liability on the appellant/respondent No.1- owner of the motorcycle No.KA-48-J-9382, on the reason that the rider of this motorcycle was not having driving licence to ride motorcycle, but has driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. Therefore, the rider of the motorcycle No.KA-48-J-9382 was not having driving licence to ride the motorcycle. Hence, fastened liability on the appellant - owner of the motorcycle. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7598 MFA No. 103392 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100021 of 2015 3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal is that on 04.01.2011 at about 07.15 p.m., deceased Ramesh was proceeding on motorcycle bearing Temporary passing No.KA-29-T-5245 from Malapur to Mudhol on Jamakhandi- Mudhol road in cautious manner. When he came near Welcome gate of Mudhol, at that time, rider of motorcycle No.KA-48-J-9382 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased-Ramesh, due to which deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Thereafter, immediately he was taken to Hospital at Mudhol and thereafter shifted to KLE Hospital for treatment. But he died during the period of treatment on 07.01.2011 due to accidental injuries. 4. The appellant-owner of the motorcycle has not produced driving licence to prove that he was having driving licence to ride motorcycle. Having possession of driving licence for Light Motor Vehicle and for motorcycle, are two different aspects. These two vehicles are entirely - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7598 MFA No. 103392 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100021 of 2015 different classes of vehicles. Just because, a person who is holding driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle cannot be said that he is also competent to ride the motorcycle. There is a difference between class of vehicle and types of vehicle. Class of vehicle means entirely two different categories. Type of vehicle means different types in the same class. But here, the class of vehicle is motorcycle, is entirely different from four wheeler or three wheeler Light Motor Vehicle. The appellant may be having driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle that cannot be said that it gives competence to ride the motorcycle also. But there is no driving licence to ride the motorcycle. Hence, it is proved that, the appellant-owner did not have driving licence to ride the motorcycle. Therefore, the infraction is proved that is correctly appreciated by the Tribunal. 5. The insurance company is able to establish the defence as per sub-section (2) of section 149 of M.V.Act. However, the claimant is third party to the motor vehicle. Hence as per sub-section (1), (5) and (7) of section 149 of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7598 MFA No. 103392 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100021 of 2015 the M.V.Act, and also as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of PAPPU AND OTHERS Vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208; NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297; and also as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. YELLAVVA AND ANOTHER reported in 2020 ACJ 2560, the insurance company shall satisfy the claim at the first instance to the claimant and then recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. However, the insurance company is at liberty to file execution petition before the jurisdictional executing Court as against the owner of the offending vehicle and may seek attachment of movables or immovable properties or both, till recovery is made and also the recovery process can be as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ORIENTAL - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7598 MFA No. 103392 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100021 of 2015 INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. NANJAPPAN AND OTHERS, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 952. 6. With regard to quantum of compensation is considered, the Tribunal has correctly held the notional income, multiplier and deducted 1/3rd of the amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and accordingly granted compensation under the head loss of dependency and it is found to be correct, which needs no interference of this Court. Further, on other heads also, the compensation awarded is found to be correct. Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is kept intact. Hence, both appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 7. Therefore, the insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment at the first instance and then recover it from the owner of offending vehicle as discussed above. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7598 MFA No. 103392 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100021 of 2015 8. The amount awarded by the tribunal is found to be just and proper. Therefore, both appeals are dismissed. 9. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the tribunal. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RKM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 50