- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12573 MFA No. 22991 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23560 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22991 OF 2013 (MV-) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23560 OF 2012 IN MFA NO. 22991/2013 BETWEEN: V. HONNAPPA S/O. V.RAMMANNA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: CIVIL HEAD CONSTABLE IN COWL BAZAR, POLICE STATIOIN, BELLARY. R/O: OLD BLOCK NO.4 DARLANE S.N.PET, BELLARY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARTHIK S/O. SRINIVAS AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. SIDDARTHA COLONY, NEAR PANNARAJ HOUSE BELLARY. 2. M.H.PRAVEEN RAO S/O. M.HANUMANTHAPPA, MAJOR, OWNER OF AUTO-RIKSHA BEARING NO.KA-34/1823 R/O.OPPOSITE REMAND HOME, MARUTHI NAGAR, SIRUGUPPA ROAD, BELLARY. 3. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BY ITS MANAGER BELLARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. V. YAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 and R2; SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12573 MFA No. 22991 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23560 of 2012 THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL ON RECORDS AND MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE MACT-IX AT BELLARY IN M.V.C. NO.1381/2011 DATED 24.052012 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IN MFA NO. 23560/2012 BETWEEN: M.H. PRAVEEN RAO S/O. M HANUMANTAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: OPP. REMAND HOME, MARUTI NAGAR, SIRAGUPPA ROAD, BELLARY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. V. HONNAPPA S/O. V RAMANNA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: NO. 365, OLD BLOCK NO. 4, DAR LANE, S.N.PETH, BELLARY. 2. KARTIK S/O. SHRINIVAS AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: MOKA ROAD, SIDDHARTH COLONY, NEAR PANNARAJ HOUSE, BELLARY. 3. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B C JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H.H.BALANAYAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMTH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED M.A.C.T-IX, BELLARY DATED 24.05.2012 IN M.V.C. NO.1381/2011 AS IT IS ILLEGAL, AND THEREBY FIXED THE LIABITY UPOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY AND DIRECT IT TO PAY THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AWARDED IN FAVOUR OF THE CLAIMANT IN M.V.C. NO.1381/2011, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12573 MFA No. 22991 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23560 of 2012 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT These Appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 24.05.2012 passed in MVC No.1381/2011 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Ballari. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals, are as follows: 3. On 19.09.2011, the petitioner was proceeding on his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-34/9399, from his house towards Cowl Bazar Police Station to attend his duty. When he reached near Kalyana Mantapa, beside Kamma Hostel, at that time, the driver of the Luggage auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-34/A-1823 came from the opposite direction in a rash and the negligent manner at a high speed, and dashed to the Petitioner’s motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12573 MFA No. 22991 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23560 of 2012 M.V.Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. The owner of the Autorickshaw filed a statement of objections, and the same was adopted by the driver by filing a memo. 5. The Owner admitted that he is the owner of the offending vehicle, and as of the date of the accident, respondent No.1 before the tribunal/ Driver was the driver of the offending vehicle. It is contended that its driver possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and the policy was in force. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12573 MFA No. 22991 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23560 of 2012 as of the date of the accident. It is contended that the owner of the offending vehicle has entrusted the offending vehicle to an unauthorized person, who did not possess a valid and effective driving License and who was not authorized to drive the commercial vehicle, such as a luggage auto. Thus, there is a breach of the policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 7. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 8. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1, and marked 106 documents as Exs.P1 to P106. Conversely, the official of the Insurance company was examined as R.W.1, and marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The owner of the offending vehicle was examined as R.W.2. 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12573 MFA No. 22991 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23560 of 2012 with costs vide judgment dated 24.05.2012, and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,82,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its deposit, and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2/ the owner and the driver to deposit the compensation amount. The claim petition against the Insurance Company was dismissed. 10. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed an appeal in MFA No.22991/2013, and the owner, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1391/2011, filed an appeal in MFA No.23560/2012. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the owner, and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as of the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle, and he is capable to drive a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12573 MFA No. 22991 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23560 of 2012 transport vehicle. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN V. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2017)14 SCC 663. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, and accordingly, prays to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle submits that as of the date of the accident, the driver possessed a valid and effective driving license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle, and he is capable to drive a transport vehicle and no endorsement is required. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN (SUPRA). Hence, prays to allow the appeal filed by the owner. 14. 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12573 MFA No. 22991 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23560 of 2012 the date of the accident, and the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeals. 15. Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. 16. The points that would arise for my consideration are regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation. 17. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. 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 FIR marked as Ex.P1, which was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12573 MFA No. 22991 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23560 of 2012 Regarding Liability: 18. The Insurance Company has taken a specific defense in the statement of objections that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has produced a copy of the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle marked as Ex.R2, which discloses that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a driving license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle. However, the driver is capable of driving a transport vehicle. The issue involved in the present case insofar as liability is concerned, is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN (SUPRA), wherein it is held that a person possessing license to drive the Light Motor Vehicle is competent to drive a transport vehicle, and further, held that no further endorsement is required to drive the transport vehicle. As observed above, the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12573 MFA No. 22991 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23560 of 2012 license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle, and the said fact has been admitted by the Insurance Company by producing Ex.R2. Thus, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company is contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN (SUPRA). Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. In view of the above discussion, this court hold that the owner and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. As there is a contract between the owner and the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner against the third party. In view of the above discussion, the point regarding liability is answered accordingly. Regarding quantum of compensation: 19. The petitioner has contended that he has suffered a permanent disability; however the petitioner has - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12573 MFA No. 22991 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23560 of 2012 not examined a doctor and produced a disability certificate to prove the permanent disability. The Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,82,500/-. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, including the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the same, the point regarding these quantum is answered accordingly. 20. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i) The Appeals are allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 24.05.2012 passed in MVC No.1381/2011 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Ballari is hereby modified. iii) The petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, including the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12573 MFA No. 22991 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23560 of 2012 compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its deposit. iv) The judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal fastening liability on the owner is set aside, and the respondents- the owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. v) However, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. vi) The amount deposited, if any, by the owner shall be refunded to the owner. vii) The Tribunal records, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7