- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11869 MFA No. 20608 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20608 OF 2013 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. R T GIRISH S/O. RAMAPPA, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT, R/O. GHANDI BAZAR, ANAVATTI, TQ: SORABA, NOW AT VAGEES NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADV) AND: 1. A SHIVAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. ARETALAGADDA, POST: TALAGADDA, TQ: SORABA, DIST: H AVERI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC. NO.346/2009, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11869 MFA No. 20608 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the petitioner, challenging the judgment and award dated 16.02.2012, passed in MVC No.346/2009 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Ranebennur, challenging the liability fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 16.07.2008 at about 2.00 p.m, the petitioner was proceeding on a motor-cycle bearing registration No.KA-15/H-7932 from Anavatti to Tallur to meet his friend. When he came near to the spot of the accident, at that time a Tractor and a Trailer bearing - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11869 MFA No. 20608 of 2013 registration Nos.KA-15/T-5819 and 5820 came from Tallur side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner’s motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner spent a huge amount towards medical and other expenses. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. 4. Respondent No.1-the owner of the Tractor and Trailer, filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. It is contended that there is no fault on the part of the driver of the tractor and the trailer in question. It is contended that the tractor and trailer was insured with respondent no.2- Insurance Company and the driver had an effective - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11869 MFA No. 20608 of 2013 and valid driving license as of the date of incident. As such, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the Tractor and Trailer. 5. Respondent No.2-Insurance company, filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date 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 petitioner to substantiate his case examined himself as PW.1, examined the doctor as PW.2 and marked 14 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-14. In - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11869 MFA No. 20608 of 2013 rebuttal, the respondents examined four witnesses as RW.1 to RW.4 and marked 6 documents as Exhibits R- 1 to R-6. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of ₹2,05,640/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization; directed the owner of the Tractor and Trailer in question to deposit the compensation amount and dismissed the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, on the ground of liability, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11869 MFA No. 20608 of 2013 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company, on the ground that the rider of the motorcycle was possessing a Learner’s license for the period from 13.02.2008 to 12.08.2009. He further submits that the accident occurred on 16.07.2008 and the charge- sheet is filed against the driver of the Tractor and Trailer in question and not against the rider of the motorcycle. The said aspect was not considered by the Tribunal and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the rider of the motorcycle was possessing only a Learner’s license as of the date of the accident. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against the insurance company. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11869 MFA No. 20608 of 2013 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the liability. 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and also injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor and trailer in question, the petitioner has produced the copy of the charge-sheet, marked as Ex.P-6, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tractor and Trailer in question. Admittedly, petitioner is the third party to the insurance company and the insurance company is bound to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle by paying the compensation to the petitioner. Further, the Tribunal has lost sight on the fact that no - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11869 MFA No. 20608 of 2013 charge-sheet is filed against the rider of the motorcycle. The driver of the offending vehicle was possessing the learner’s license as of the accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahamooda and others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd and others reported in (2004)13 SCC 684, had an occasion to consider the issue regarding the liability of the insurer when the offending vehicle is driven by a person holding a Learner’s License. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that even when an offending vehicle was driven by the person holding a Learner's License, the insurer’s liability is existed. While holding so, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to its earlier judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 93 and 94 of the judgment, which reads as under: “93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence. [See Section 4(3), - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11869 MFA No. 20608 of 2013 Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14.] A learner's licence is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that when a vehicle is being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not "duly licensed" resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a learner's licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learner's licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act. 94. The provisions contained in the said Act provide also for grant of driving licence which is otherwise a learner's licence. Sections 3(2) and 6 of the Act provide for restriction in the matter of grant of driving licence, Section 7 deals with such restrictions on granting of learner's licence. Sections 8 and 9 provide for the manner and conditions for grant of driving licence. Section 15 provides for renewal of driving licence. Learner's licences are granted under the Rules framed by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11869 MFA No. 20608 of 2013 the Central Government or the State Governments in exercise of their rule-making power. Conditions are attached to the learner's licences granted in terms of the statute. A person holding learner's licence would, thus, also come within the purview of "duly licensed" as such a licence is also granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is now a well-settled principle of law that rules validly framed become part of the statute. Such rules are, therefore, required to be read as a part of the main enactment. It is also a well-settled principle of law that for the interpretation of statute an attempt must be made to give effect to all provisions under the rule. No provision should be considered as surplusage.” 15. Thus, the Trial Court, without considering the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred supra, has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition against the insurance company. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11869 MFA No. 20608 of 2013 16. Thus, considering the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred above, this Court is of the considered view that, in the instant case, admittedly the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a Learner’s License as of the date of accident, therefore, the liability of the insurance company exists. 17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 16.02.2012 passed in MVC No.346/2009 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Ranebennur, is hereby modified. iii. The petitioner is entitled to compensation of ₹2,05,640/- with - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11869 MFA No. 20608 of 2013 interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest for the delayed period of 247 days in filing of this appeal. iv. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. v. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. vi. The office is directed to transmit the TCRs to the Tribunal. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2