- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11014 MFA No. 24360 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23111 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24360 OF 2013 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23111 OF 2013 IN MFA NO. 24360 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. MAHANTESH S/O SHANKAR LONI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PETTY BUSINESS, R/O: C/O: SANJEEVA G YAVAGAL, KERI ONI, PAGADI GALLI CROSS, HUBLI, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. 2. GIRISH S/O SHANKAR LONI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PETTY BUSINESS, R/O: C/O: SANJEEVA G YAVAGAL, KERI ONI, PAGADI GALLI CROSS, HUBLI, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ANJANEYA M, ADV) AND: 1. VEERAPPA S/O RAMACHANDRA KANAKAREDDY, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUDHOL, A/P: NANDAGAON, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, JOSHI BUILDING, STATION ROAD, HUBLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 19.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.398/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HUBLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.12 16:38:45 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11014 MFA No. 24360 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23111 of 2013 IN MFA NO. 23111 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER NOW REP. BY SHARANAPPA SAHU DEPUTY MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., TP HUB, REGIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI. MAHANTESH S/O SHANKAR LONI AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PETTY BUSINES, R/O. C/O: SANJEEV G YAVAGAL, KERI ONI, PAGADI GALLI CROSS, HUBLI. 2. SHRI. GIRISH S/O SHANKAR LONI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: PETTY BUSINES, R/O. C/O: SANJEEV G YAVAGAL, KERI ONI, PAGADI GALLI CROSS, HUBLI. 3. SHRI. VEERAPPA S/O RAMACHANDRA KANAKAREDDY, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: POST NANDAGAUN, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANJANEYA M, ADV FOR R1 & R2, SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADV FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:19-01-2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.398/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HUBLI, AWARDING THE COMPENSAITON OF RS.2,39,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PEITTION TILL REALISATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11014 MFA No. 24360 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23111 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) These Appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 19.01.2013 passed in M.V.C. No.398/2011 by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Hubballi. 2. The Insurance company has filed the appeal in M.F.A.No.23111/2013 challenging the liability, and the claimants, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, have filed M.F.A.No.24360/2013. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: One Sucheta wife of Shankar Loni met with an accident on 17.04.2011 while she was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-29/J-1021 as a pillion rider. When the motorcycle was stopped, at that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11014 MFA No. 24360 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23111 of 2013 time, the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA- 29/T-1709, 1710 and 1711 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, Smt. Sucheta, fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries and was succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation for the death of their mother-Sucheta. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections admitting the ownership of the tractor involved in the accident. It is contended that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and the policy was valid as of the date of the accident and the driver possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11014 MFA No. 24360 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23111 of 2013 5. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that there is a breach of policy conditions. It is contended that the driver did not have a valid and effective driving license, the Tractor did not have a fitness certificate and a permit and the rider of the motor cycle equally contributed for the cause of accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The claimants, to substantiate their case, claimant No.2 was examined as PW-1, and marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. The RTO was examined as RW-1, and marked one document as Ex.R-1. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 19.01.2013 and awarded a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11014 MFA No. 24360 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23111 of 2013 compensation of Rs.2,39,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization of the entire claim and held that the owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount. The insurance company, aggrieved by the liability, filed the appeal in M.F.A.No.23111/2013 and the claimants, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed the appeal in M.F.A.No.24360/2013 seeking for an enhancement of the compensation. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance company and the Claimants. 10. 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 the date of the accident. He possessed only a learner license. He was possessing a LMV license and not a transport vehicle. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11014 MFA No. 24360 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23111 of 2013 Hence, he submits that there is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability jointly and severally on the owner and the insurance company. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, he prays allow the appeal filed by the insurance company and to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company and prays to allow the appeal filed by the claimants. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11014 MFA No. 24360 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23111 of 2013 13. The points that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation. Reg. liability: 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and death of Sucheta in the road traffic accident. The insurance company has taken a specific defense that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. There were two trailers attached to the tractor. Admittedly, the driver was having a driving license to drive LMV tractor. A trailer was attached to the tractor which became a transport vehicle and driver could not be said to have the valid driving license to drive a transport vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider the said issue in the case of Nagashetty vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others in Civil Appeal Nos.5380-5381/2001 disposed of on 17.08.2001. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the driver had a license to drive a tractor. The - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11014 MFA No. 24360 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23111 of 2013 tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving license to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid license to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving license to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle. 15. There is no dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a driving license to drive a tractor, and just merely because the trailers are attached to the said vehicle, the driver of the vehicle does not become disabled to drive the said vehicle. Considering the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagashetty referred supra, the Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid and effective driving license and was not disabled to drive the tractor attached to the trailers. Thus, the insurance company has - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11014 MFA No. 24360 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23111 of 2013 failed to establish that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The tribunal was justified in fastening the liability jointly and severally. I do not find any error in fastening the liability, I concur with the findings recorded by the tribunal on the point of liability. Reg. quantum of compensation : 16. The claimants have contended that the deceased Suchetha was working as an agriculturist and to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants have not produced any income proof. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- which is just and proper, and do not call for any interference. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased, considered the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and properly applied the multiplier and rightly awarded a compensation of Rs.2,39,000/-. Hence, the claimants have failed to make out a ground for an enhancement of the compensation. I do - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11014 MFA No. 24360 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 23111 of 2013 not find any error in the impugned judgment and I concur with the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) Both the appeals in MFA Nos. 23111 of 2013 and 24360 of 2013 are hereby dismissed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 19.01.2013 passed in M.V.C. No.398/2011 by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Hubballi is hereby confirmed. (iii) The office is directed to transmit the records and amount in deposit to the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13