- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9434 MFA No. 24301 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24301 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. K. T. RAMESH S/O K.G. THIPPESWAMY, AGED: 38 YEARS, SUPERVISOR OF JSW, NOW RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS, SHASTRI NAGAR, BALLARI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. Y LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV) AND: 1. DODDABASAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED: 40 YEARS, OWNER OF AUTO BEARING REG NO.KA-35-A-2603, R/O: TALUR, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER, THE UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD., BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. R MANE, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.904/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-II, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Date: 2025.08.11 16:08:27 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9434 MFA No. 24301 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 07.02.2012 passed in MVC No.904/2011 by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Ballari questioning the liability. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 25.02.2010 at about 3.00 p.m., the claimant was travelling in the 1st respondent's Auto rikshaw bearing Registration No.KA.35-A.2603 and on account of rash and negligent driving of the Auto to overtake a truck, the Auto rikshaw turtled over and the claimant fell from the Auto, and sustained lateral tibia condyle, and 9 other injuries. He was immediately admitted to Jindal Sanjeevini Hospital, Ballari. Hence, the claimant was constrained to file a claim petition in MVC No.904/2011. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9434 MFA No. 24301 of 2013 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not file a statement of objections. 5. Respondent No.3—insurer of the auto-rikshaw filed a statement of objections admitting that the vehicle in question was insured with it and its liability was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that the driver i.e., respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, of the auto-rickshaw was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Respondent No.3 denied the nature of injuries, avocation, expenses incurred and income of the claimant. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The claimant, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined one more witness i.e., the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9434 MFA No. 24301 of 2013 Doctor as PW-2 and marked 72 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-72. 8. Conversely, an official of respondent No.3 was examined as RW-1, and marked two documents as Exhibits R-1 and R-2. 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded the compensation of ₹80,000/- with cost, and interest at 8 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, against respondent Nos.1 and 2; and the claim petition was dismissed against respondent No.3. It is also held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with up-to- date interest and costs. 10. The claimant, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, filed this appeal on the grounds of quantum, and the liability. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9434 MFA No. 24301 of 2013 11. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the claimant, and learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurer. 12. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the driver of the auto-rickshaw was possessing a driving license to drive a light motor vehicle, and in view of the proposition of law, laid down by three Judge’ Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported at 2017 (14) SCC 663, he is authorized to drive the said vehicle. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Kumar Sood v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2018 SC 2906 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has reaffirmed the proposition laid down in Mukund Dewangan’s case. 13. He submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition against respondent No.3. He also submits that the compensation awarded - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9434 MFA No. 24301 of 2013 by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds prays to allow the appeal. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported the impugned judgment, and award passed by the Tribunal, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 15. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 16. The only point that, arises for consideration in this appeal is about the liability and the quantum of compensation. 17. It is not in dispute that the claimant met with an accident on 25.02.2010, and sustained grievous injuries. To substantiate that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimant has produced a certified copy of the charge sheet marked as Exhibit P6. The Tribunal, on proper appreciation of material - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9434 MFA No. 24301 of 2013 and evidence on record, has held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Auto rikshaw. 18. This Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in answering issue No.1 in the affirmative. I do not find any error in the findings recorded on issue No.1 by the Tribunal. 19. Insofar as the liability is concerned, the claimant has produced a copy of the driving licence to prove that the driver of the Auto-rikshaw was in possession of a valid and effective driving licence. 20. The claimant has filed a Memo before the Tribunal along with a copy of the driving licence, which discloses that respondent No.1 is authorized to drive the light motor vehicle, non-transport from 08.09.2006 to 07.09.2026. Since, the accident occurred on 25.02.2010, as on the date of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9434 MFA No. 24301 of 2013 accident, the claimant was having a valid and effective driving licence, i.e., LMV licence. 21. As per the definition of light motor vehicle, as defined under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it would include a transport vehicle, as per the weightage prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Section 2(15) and Section 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of light motor vehicle by the Amendment Act No.54 of 1994. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the said issue in the judgment rendered by it in Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra), wherein it is held that a person possessing the licence to drive a light motor vehicle is competent to drive the transport vehicle. It was further held that such person requires no further endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9434 MFA No. 24301 of 2013 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reaffirmed the said proposition laid down in the judgment of Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra) in Jagdish Kumar Sood’s case (supra). 24. In the instant case, admittedly, the driver of the Auto Rikshaw was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle and the said fact has not been denied by respondent No 3. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has reaffirmed the proposition laid down in the judgment passed in Mukund Dewangan’s case in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi and others in Civil Appeal No.841/2018 reported in 2024 Live Law (SC) 859. 25. The Tribunal, without considering the said aspect, has proceeded to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9434 MFA No. 24301 of 2013 26. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan’s case referred to supra, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the claimant. 27. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that respondent No.3 is also liable to pay the compensation. 28. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. To prove his injuries, he has produced the Wound Certificate marked as Exhibit P- 5, and also examined the doctor as PW2. He deposed that he has examined the claimant on 24.12.2011 for the assessment of injuries and disability, and he had verified the wound certificate, discharge sheet and medical records of Jindal Sanjivini Hospital, V.V.Nagar, Ballari district. He has recorded his finding in Ex.P-71 and opined that the claimant had suffered - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9434 MFA No. 24301 of 2013 a permanent partial disability of 15% to the whole body. 29. The Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, and also the evidence of PW-2, has awarded a total compensation of ₹80,000/. 30. There is no dispute that the claimant has continued in his service even after the accident. As such, he is not entitled to a loss of future income. 31. The Tribunal, considering the injuries, has awarded a total compensation of ₹80,000/-. 32. On reassessing of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the said compensation is on the lower side, keeping in view, the nature of injuries, and the evidence of PW2. 33. This Court is of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to a global compensation of ₹1,25,000/-. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9434 MFA No. 24301 of 2013 34. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 07.02.2012 passed in MVC No.904/2011 by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Ballari is modified. (iii) The claimant is entitled to a global compensation of ₹1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. (iv) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the Tribunal are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation with accrued interest to the claimant. (v) Respondent No.3, being the insurer of the vehicle, is liable to indemnify respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 is - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9434 MFA No. 24301 of 2013 directed to deposit the compensation with the accrued interest within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7