- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39905 MFA No. 925 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 925 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: SRI. SAMPANGI REDDY S/O. GANGAREDDY, AGED 66 YEARS, R/AT PARANDAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 122. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.R. AKERSH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, NOW AT BRIGADE MAGNUM, KODIGEHALLI GATE, SAHAKARANAGARA POST, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 092. 2. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O GOPALAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 3. SRI. GOPALAREDDY S/O LATE MUNIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 4. SMT. YASHODHAMMA W/O GOPALAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39905 MFA No. 925 of 2021 RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 RESIDING AT MUDDEGOWDANAHALLI, BETHAMANGALA POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.20.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.7487/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.12,43,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the respondent No.1-owner being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.02.2020, passed in MVC.No.7487/2017, by the I Addl.Small Causes Judge & MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-11) (for short, `Tribunal'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39905 MFA No. 925 of 2021 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.08.2017, deceased Munireddy was traveling in tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-08-T-7731 and KA-08-T-7732, as a loader and unloader. The said tractor-trailer met with an accident at Garudadrahalli, as a result of which, the said Munireddy sustained severe injuries and on the way to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. With these reasons, the claimants being the wife and parents of the deceased, filed the claim petition for awarding of compensation. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their respective written statements denied petition averments. Respondent No.2 denied its liability and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal framed necessary issues, recorded the evidence and after hearing the arguments, by the impugned judgment and award, awarded compensation and directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation on the ground that driver of the said vehicle - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39905 MFA No. 925 of 2021 had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer submits that award has been satisfied by respondent No.2. 7. In view of the above, the only question to be considered in this case is whether the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation? 8. The respondent No.2-insurer contended before the Tribunal that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle and that the driver was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 181 and Section 5 read with Section 180 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle did not lead evidence or got marked the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 9. In this appeal, the appellant/owner has produced the driving licence along with IA.No.1/2024. After hearing the arguments, the said application was allowed and with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39905 MFA No. 925 of 2021 the consent of both parties, the said document is marked as Ex.R-3. Ex.R-3 reveals that driver of the offending vehicle had license to drive light motor vehicles and it was issued on 01.12.2009 and it is in force up to 30.11.2029. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the Tribunal records, true copy of RC is available, which indicates that unladen weight of tractor was 1845 Kgs. and trailer was 1300 Kgs. He further submits that, in view of the same, although the driver of the offending vehicle had licence to drive light motor vehicles, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1, it can be considered that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence. The said question of law is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle as on the date of the accident. 1 AIR 2017 SC 3668 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39905 MFA No. 925 of 2021 11. In view of non-production of the relevant document before the Tribunal, the Tribunal fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation. Since the driver of the offending vehicle had effective and valid driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle at the time of the accident, the respondent-insurer shall indemnify the owner. To that extent, the judgment and award of the Tribunal requires modification. Accordingly, the following order is passed : ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in-part. ii) The judgment and award dated 20.02.2020, passed in MVC.No.7487/2017, by the I Addl.Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-11), stands modified. iii) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and respondent No.2 being the insurer shall deposit the amount of compensation with interest as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39905 MFA No. 925 of 2021 awarded by the Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of the award. iv) Since respondent No.2 has paid the entire amount of compensation to the claimants, whatever statutory amount deposited by the appellant/owner before this Court shall be refunded to the appellant on proper identity. v) Draw award accordingly. vi) Send the Ex.R-3 marked before this Court, which shall be part of record of the Tribunal. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39