- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1536 MFA No. 201454 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201454 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SALIM S/O JANIMIYA SHAIKH, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, 2. SMT. RESHMA W/O SALIM SHAIKH, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, BOTH ARE R/O SIDDESHWAR NAGAR, BHAGE-1, NAYI ZINDAGI CHOWK, MAJAREWADI, SOLAPUR-413 001, (MAHARASHTRA STATE). …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHAMSHODDIN MD. SARID HIPPARGIKAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILERS NO.MH-13/T-9723, MH.13/T-2292 AND T-2294, R/O KARANJA CHOWK, BUDHAWAR PETH, AKKALKOT, DIST. SOLAPUR-413 216, (MAHARASHTRA STATE). Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1536 MFA No. 201454 of 2023 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COM. LTD., VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABDUL QUAYUM, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 28.06.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO A) MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.131/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO. III, VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY RS.5,30,000/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT B) THE FIXING THE LIABILITY TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MAY BE SET ASIDE AND FIXED THE LIABILITY TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 i.e., INSURANCE COMPANY C) ORDER FOR COSTS OF THIS APPEALE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1536 MFA No. 201454 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.131/2015 dated 20.04.2017 by learned II-Addl. Dist. Judge & MACT, Vijayapura, the petitioners are before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and assailing the fastening of liability on respondent No.1 as illegal. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 21.05.2014 at 3:30 p.m. petitioners along with their son Rehan, aged about 7 years were proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.MH-13/BK-3056 from Panmanglor village towards Solapur and near Karjagi village a tractor trailers unit (for short, ‘the TTU’) bearing No.MH-13/T-9723, T-2292 and T-2294 was proceeding in front of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1536 MFA No. 201454 of 2023 motorcycle and the rear side of the trailer brushed the motorcycle of the petitioner, resulting in their minor son Rehan falling down and sustaining injuries resulting in his death. It was alleged that the accident was on account of the negligence of the driver of the TTU. 4. In response to the service of notice, the respondent No.2 alone appeared and resisted the petition contending that there was no such negligence on the part of the driver of the TTU and that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner No.1. Inter alia, among other grounds it was also contended that the driver of the TTU was not having a valid driving licence and therefore the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. 5. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. The official of the respondent No.2 was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 to 4 were marked in evidence. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1536 MFA No. 201454 of 2023 6. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Kishangopal and another vs. Lala and others1 rendered by the Apex Court. It held that the driver of the TTU was in fact driving a goods vehicle, but he was having the licence of LMV and as such, he was not authorized to drive a transport vehicle. Consequently, the Insurance Company was absolved and the liability was fastened upon the respondent No.1-owner of the TTU. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court in appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submitted that the reliance by the Tribunal on the judgment in the case of Kishangopal (supra) in calculating the compensation is correct and he would not press his appeal on this count. 1 2013(4)TAC-5 SC - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1536 MFA No. 201454 of 2023 9. Regarding the quantum of compensation, when the impugned judgment is perused, this Court finds that no fault can be found with the Tribunal regarding calculation of the compensation amount in respect of the death of a boy aged 7 years in the accident. 10. The second ground urged by learned counsel for the appellants is that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited2, which is reiterated by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and others3 makes it very clear that if the unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 7500kg, the driver need not obtain a licence to drive a transport vehicle, but a licence to drive an LMV would be sufficient. Therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court to set at naught the fastening of the liability on respondent No.1 and to fasten liability on respondent No.2. 2 (2017) 14 SCC 663 3 2024 INSC 832 Civil Appeal No.841/2018 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1536 MFA No. 201454 of 2023 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the unladen weight of the entire TTU is to be considered, but not the tractor alone. 12. On perusal of the Tribunal records would show that though the entire charge-sheet papers are produced, except the form of the charge-sheet, other documents supporting the charge-sheet were not marked. The registration certificate of the tractor shows that the unlden weight of the tractor was 2280kg. The unladen weight of the two trailers is 2100kg each. Therefore, the total unladen weight of the TTU would come to 6480kg. In the result, a driving licence to drive LMV would be sufficient in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan and Rambha Devi cited supra. 13. The impugned judgment, in paragraph-12 went under the premise that the driver of the TTU should have possessed a licence to drive a transport vehicle and as such, held that there is violation of terms and conditions of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1536 MFA No. 201454 of 2023 the policy and fastened the liability upon respondent No.1. Evidently, the said conclusion by the Tribunal is erroneous. 14. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed in-part. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in-part. ii) The judgment of the Tribunal insofar as quantum of compensation amount is confirmed. iii) The judgment of the Tribunal fastening the liability on respondent No.1 is set aside and the liability to pay the compensation is fastened upon respondent No.2-Insurance Company. iv) Rest of the award of the Tribunal remain unaltered. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1536 MFA No. 201454 of 2023 v) The Registry to send back the records to the concerned Court forthwith. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 65 CT: AK