- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24316 MFA No. 5066 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5066 OF 2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: SRI RAVI B.R. S/O. RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT BAKKAPPANAKOPPALU BANDURU POST, JAVAGAL HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-576 101. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. AISHWARYA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GURURAJ R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MOHANKUMARI W/O. LATE CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF KADARAVALLI VILLAGE SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN-576 101. 2. KUMARI B.C. KOMALA D/O. LATE CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS MINOR PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF KADARAVALLI VILLAGE SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN-576 101. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24316 MFA No. 5066 of 2016 3. KUMARI NAVYASHREE D/O. LATE CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF KADARAVALLI VILLAGE SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN-576 101. SINCE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN THEIR MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. 4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O. GIRIGOWDA RESPONDENT NO.4 IS DEAD AND RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 3 ARE THE ONLY LRS WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. ALL ARE RESIDING AT BAKKAPPANA KOPPALU VILLAGE JAVAGAL HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK. 5. REGIONAL MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE UNIT NO.4 9TH STAGE, GOLDEN HIGH COMPLEX 59TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGARA 4TH "M" BLOCK, "C" CROSS BENGALURU-560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. A.R. SHARDAMBA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 AND R-3 ARE REPRESENTED BY R-1; V/O DATED 24-3-2025, R-1 TO R-3 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R-4; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-5) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24316 MFA No. 5066 of 2016 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 5-5-2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.296 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the owner of the vehicle challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 5th May 2016 in M.V.C.No.296/2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Hassan (for short `Tribunal'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 30th October 2013, at around 5:00 a.m., the deceased - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24316 MFA No. 5066 of 2016 Chandregowda was travelling in an Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-13-B-2183 as a paid passenger. The driver of the Autorickshaw was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at Linglapura Gate, Jodugamba, Arasikere Taluk and due to that it over turned. Due to the impact, Chandregowda sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. 4. The further case of the claimants is that they are wife, children and mother of the deceased Chandregowda. They contend that deceased was aged 34 years, he was a Carpenter as well as agriculturist earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. The claimants were depending upon his earnings. With these reasons, they prayed to award of compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-. 5. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 contended that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24316 MFA No. 5066 of 2016 liable to pay the compensation in the event the petition is allowed. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1. 6. Respondent No.2 denied the contents of the claim petition and further contended that it's liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the Autorickshaw. 7. The Tribunal framed necessary issues on the basis of pleadings of both the parties. 8. The claimants to prove their case examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 & 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. Respondent No.1 was examined as R.W.2 and respondent No.2 examined one witness as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R6. 9. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the materials available on record, awarded a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24316 MFA No. 5066 of 2016 total compensation of Rs.7 Lakhs. The Tribunal directed respondent No.1 to pay the compensation and exonerated the liability of respondent No.2 on the ground that at the time of accident, the driver of the Autorickshaw was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. 10. Aggrieved by the said finding, owner (respondent No.1) of the vehicle preferred this appeal challenging the exoneration of respondent No.2 to pay the compensation. 11. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondents. 12. There is no dispute in respect of the facts of the case or the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the appellant/owner (respondent No.1) seriously contended that the driver of the Autorickshaw was holding licence to drive the three wheeler (non-transport). In view of the judgment of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24316 MFA No. 5066 of 2016 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.1 and also the constitution bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Rambha Devi & others2 the driver who was authorised to drive non- transport vehicle can drive the transport vehicle of the said class even without holding an endorsement from the concerned RTO to drive transport vehicle of the said class. It is applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, respondent No.2 be directed to pay the compensation and indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 13. The submission of the learned counsel for the owner/appellant is tenable. The point involved in this case is covered by the above said two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mukund Dewangan and Bajaj Alliance (supra). 1(2017)14 SCC 663 2 (2025)3 SCC 95 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24316 MFA No. 5066 of 2016 14. The driving licence of the driver of the Autorickshaw has been placed on record as per Ex.P5. It shows that he had a licence to drive three wheeler (non-transport) valid upto 01.01.2028 which is not in serious in dispute. The Tribunal exonerated the liability of the insurance company on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive that class of vehicle. 15. Of course, the Tribunal decided the matter prior to passing of the judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). In the changed circumstances, insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 16. On going through the materials on record, the Tribunal rightly accepted the contentions of the claimant and awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation and it does not call for any interference by this court. Undisputedly, the liability of respondents is joint and several in view of changed circumstances. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24316 MFA No. 5066 of 2016 17. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal needs modification. For the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part; ii) The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed and respondent No.2 (Insurer) shall deposit the said amount with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till it's realisation. iii) The amount, if any, deposited by the owner of the vehicle shall be refunded to him on due acknowledgement. iv) Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23