- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9528 MFA No. 24442 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24442 OF 2012 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. YASHVANT S/O VITTAL NAIK AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TEMPO BEARING NO.KA-47/1207, R/O. HOLEBADIKERI, BALKUR, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A S PATIL, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. RUKMINI W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA NAIK AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O. MALLIKERI, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 2. SHRI. KAMALAKAR S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA NAIK AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O. MALLIKERI, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 3. MISS. ROOPA D/O LATE RAMACHANDRA NAIK AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O. MALLIKERI, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 4. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., V.A. KALBURGI MANSION, 4TH FLOOR, OPP. HDMC, LAMIGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANKIT R. DESAI, ADV FOR R1 & R3, SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADV FOR R4, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.30 15:43:49 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9528 MFA No. 24442 of 2012 THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.162/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HONAVAR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,83,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGEMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the appellant, i.e., the owner of the offending vehicle, challenging the judgment and award dated 26.06.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.162/2009 by the Addl. M.A.C.T., Honnavar. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 27.04.2009, the deceased Ramachandra Hanumanth Naik was riding the motorcycle bearing No.KA- 19/K-332 with great care and caution on his proper side. At that time, a tempo bearing No.KA-47/1207, driven by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9528 MFA No. 24442 of 2012 its driver-cum-owner of the vehicle drove the same at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and collided with the motorcycle. Due to the said impact, the rider and the pillion rider of the motorcycle fell and sustained severe injuries. Ramachandra Hanumanth Naik died and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased Ramachandra Hanumanth Naik, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The pillion rider also filed a claim petition in M.V.C.No.16/2010. 4. Respondent No.1- the driver of the offending vehicle has filled his statement of objections, denying the petition averments. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. It is further contended that the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2 as of the date of the accident. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition against him. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9528 MFA No. 24442 of 2012 5. Respondent no.2- the Insurance Company filed its statement of objections, denying the petition averments. It is contended that the petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. Further it is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Thus, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition against him. 6. The Tribunal clubbed both the claim petitions and framed separate issues. 7. In M.V.C.No.162/2009, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW-1 and one witness was examined as PW- 2. The petitioner in M.V.C.No.16/2010 was examined himself as PW-3 and marked 78 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-78. The official of the insurance company was examined as RW-1, the Motor Vehicle Inspector was examined as RW-2 and the Second Division Assistant of the RTO office, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9528 MFA No. 24442 of 2012 Mangalore was examined as RW-3 and marked 6 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-6. 8. The Tribunal after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part and it is held that the petitioners in M.V.C.No.162/2009 are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,83,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and held that respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation and directed to deposit the amount with accrued interest within one month from the date of the order. The claim petitions were dismissed against the insurance company on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The owner of the vehicle, aggrieved by the impugned judgment, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- owner of the offending vehicle and the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9528 MFA No. 24442 of 2012 10. The point that would arise for consideration is about the liability. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased Ramachandra Hanumanth Naik met with an accident, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners have produced the charge sheet marked as Ex.P-22, which discloses that on accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 12. Insofar as liability is concerned, the officer of the respondent-insurance company was examined as RW- 1 and, examined Regional Transport Officer as RW-2 and examined one witness as RW-3 and produced Ex.R-4 i.e. the driving license perticulars, which discloses that the appellant herein was possessing an LMV license valid up to 06.01.2018. The issue involved in the instant case is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has 1 (2017)14 SCC 663 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9528 MFA No. 24442 of 2012 held that a person possessing license to drive a light motor vehicle is competent to drive transport vehicle and further held that no further endorsement is required to drive the transport vehicle. Further, the said judgment has been referred by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdish Kumar Sood vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.240/2017. Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a license to drive LMV and the said fact has not been denied by the respondent- insurance company. On the contrary, the insurance company has produced Ex.R-5 to show that the driver was possessing a driving license to drive LMV. The Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability, only on the owner of the offending vehicle. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mukund Dewangan and Jagdish Kumar Sood (supra). Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bajaj - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9528 MFA No. 24442 of 2012 Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd V/s. Rambhadevi and Ors.,2 has reaffirmed the proposition of law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan. 13. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 26.06.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.162/2009 by the Addl. M.A.C.T., Honnavar, is modified. (iii) Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners/claimants. (iv) The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest as awarded by the tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2 2024 ACJ 2623 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9528 MFA No. 24442 of 2012 (v) The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be refunded to the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6