- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12571 MFA No. 22895 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22895 OF 2013 (MV-) BETWEEN: SHANTA W/O. FAKKIRGOUDA DESAIGOUDRA AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE and HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KOTBAL, TQ: RON DIST: GADAG. …APPELLANT (BY KUM. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SIDDAYYA S/O. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. H.NO. 1492/6, 1ST CROSS, BASAPUR ROAD, ANNA NAGAR, DAVANAGERI-570001. 2. BAJAJ ALIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD POLICY NO.0G-10-1715-1803-00000223, DAVANGERI. 3. SUBASCHANDRA FAKKIRAGOUDA DESAIGOUDRA, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12571 MFA No. 22895 of 2013 AGE:33 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O.KOTABAL, TALUK:RON. 4. JAGADISH FAKKIRAGOUDA DESAIGOUDRA, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O.KOTABAL, TALUK:RON. 5. SHIVANAGOUDA FAKKIRAGOUDA DESAIGOUDRA AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O.KOTABAL, TALUK:RON 6. BHIMANGOUDA FAKKIRAGOUDA DESAIGOUDRA AGE:25 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O.KOTABAL, TALUK:RON. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1, R3, R4 TO R6 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF MVC NO.25/2010 FROM LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT., RON DATED 30.08.2011 AND THE AWARD PASSED THEREIN MAY PLEASE BE ENHANCED BY GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER NO.5 AS CLAIMED BY HER IN THE PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12571 MFA No. 22895 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act, 1988” for short) by the petitioner No.5, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded vide judgment and award dated 30.08.2011, passed in MVC No.25/2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Ron (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short). 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: On 14.05.2010, at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased Fakkirgouda was travelling in an Alfa Passenger Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-26/7817 from Ron to Kotbal village. In the evening near Basavanna Temple, the driver of the Tata Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-17/A-4982 came from the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the Tempo. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12571 MFA No. 22895 of 2013 grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the legal representatives of the deceased Fakkirgouda filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased Fakkirgouda in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the claim made by the petitioners is exorbitant, and the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12571 MFA No. 22895 of 2013 as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. To substantiate their case, petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1, and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. Conversely, the official of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1, and marked 5 documents as Exs.R1 to R5. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 30.08.2011, and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,99,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its deposit, and held that respondent No.1-the owner is liable to pay the entire compensation to the petitioner. The claim petition against petitioner No.2 was dismissed on the ground that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12571 MFA No. 22895 of 2013 the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. 8. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this court, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12571 MFA No. 22895 of 2013 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation. 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and the death of the deceased Fakkirgouda 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 petitioners have produced a certified copy of the charge sheet marked as Ex.P2, which is 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. Regarding Liability: 15. The Insurance Company has taken a specific defense in a statement of objections that the driver of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12571 MFA No. 22895 of 2013 offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The petitioners have produced the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle to show that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle, non-transport vehicle, however, he did not possess a driving license to drive the offending vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN V. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, in paragraph 45 and 46 held as follows: “45. Transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(47) of the Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Public service vehicle has been defined in section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Goods carriage which is also a transport vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a person - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12571 MFA No. 22895 of 2013 holding licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of the Act, and the Amendment Act 54/1994. 46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre- amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle” in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12571 MFA No. 22895 of 2013 provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of ‘light motor vehicles’ and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport Vehicle’ would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed.” 16. In the connected claim petition filed by the petitioners therein in MVC No.12/2010, the Co-ordinate Bench of this court has fastened the liability jointly and severally on the owner and the Insurance Company in MFA No.22184/2012. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court disposed of the appeal and the cross objection on 31.10.2017. The judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the aforesaid appeal has attained finality. The Insurance Company has accepted the liability in the connected claim petition. The instant case arises out of the same accident. Even in the instant case, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12571 MFA No. 22895 of 2013 petitioner. The Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company. In view of the above discussion, I answer the point regarding liability accordingly. The owner and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. Reg. Quantum of compensation: 17. The petitioners have contended that the deceased Fakkirgouda was an agriculturist and used to earn Rs.8,000/- p.m. The petitioners have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income must be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Hence, the notional income is taken at Rs.5,500/- p.m., as the accident occurred in 2010. In addition to it, 10% towards the future prospects has to be added, as per the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12571 MFA No. 22895 of 2013 COMPANY LIMITED VS PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, which comes to Rs.6,050/- as the deceased was about 55 years old, as of the date of the accident, and 50% of his income must be deducted towards his personal expenses, which comes to Rs.3,025/- (Rs.6,050/- less Rs.3,025/-). The multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘11’. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,99,300/- (Rs.3,025/-x 12 x 11) under the head loss of dependency. There are five claimants, and they are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 5) under the head loss of consortium, Rs.36,000/- under the head funeral expenses and loss of estate. 18. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation, which is as follows: Particulars Compensation amount in (Rs.) Loss of dependency (Rs.3,025/-x 12x 11) 3,99,300/- Loss of consortium 2,40,000/- - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12571 MFA No. 22895 of 2013 (Rs.48,000/- x 5) Funeral expenses and loss of Estate 36,000/- Total 6,75,300/- Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 2,99,000/- Enhanced compensation 3,76,300/- 19. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,75,300/- as against Rs.2,99,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., to an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,76,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its deposit. In view of the same, the point regarding the quantum is answered accordingly. 20. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and the award dated 30.08.2011, passed in MVC No.25/2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Ron, is hereby modified. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12571 MFA No. 22895 of 2013 iii) Petitioner No. 5 is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,75,300/- as against Rs.2,99,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., to an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,76,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its deposit. iv) The owner and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. vi) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6