- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35098 MFA No. 7501 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7501 OF 2016 (WC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE NO.44/45 RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI V K RAFEEQ S/O V ABDULLA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O NAPOKLU VILLAGE AND POST MADIKERE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201 2. M/S SRI RAJESWARI LORRY SERVICE BEHIND MEENAKSHI AMMAN TEMPLE ANEJNYAPPA GARDEN, KOTHANUR, BANNERUGHATTE MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076 …RESPONDENTS (BY V/O DTD; 14.03.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R2 IS SERVED, AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35098 MFA No. 7501 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.06.2016 PASSED IN ECA NO.245/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, & XXXII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,91,923/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. In spite of service of notice to respondents, they did not turn up and remained ex-parte. 2. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 21.06.2016 passed in ECA.No.245/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. 3. The injured claimant met with an accident on 28.06.2013 and filed claim petition under Workman Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35098 MFA No. 7501 of 2016 Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.1,91,923/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date of accident till its realization. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Manager of Oriental Insurance Company filed this appeal and mainly contended that the issued insurance policy covering risk of tanker lorry as on the date of accident, subject to the terms of policy and provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is further contended that the petitioner has no valid and effective driving license to drive hazardous goods vehicle as on the date of accident, but the Tribunal, contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, fastened the liability against them, which is illegal and arbitrary. The tanker lorry is a petrol tanker carrying hazardous goods within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the driver has no valid driving license. Ex.R1 is the DL extract, which clearly shows that the petitioner was authorized to drive LMV, HGV and HPV, but he has no - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35098 MFA No. 7501 of 2016 license to drive hazardous goods vehicle. The appellant has examined RTO officer as RW.1 and he has also supported their version. 5. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: "3. Necessity for driving licence:- (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than (a motor cab or motor cycle) hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75) unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub- section(1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government." 6. Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35098 MFA No. 7501 of 2016 "5. Responsibility of owners of motor vehicles for contravention of sections 3 and 4:- No owner of person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of section 3 or 4 to drive the vehicle." 7. Petitioner was not competent to drive heavy goods vehicle carrying hazardous goods. Thus, the Insurance Company requested the Court to set aside the judgment of the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. CHATHA SERVICE STATION Vs. LALMATI DEVI AND OTHERS1. Paragraph No.11 of said judgment reads as under: Rule 9 requires that "any person driving a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life shall, in addition to being the holder of a driving licence to drive a 1 Special Leave Petition (c) Nos.25789-25792/2019 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35098 MFA No. 7501 of 2016 transport vehicle, also has the ability to read and write at least one Indian language specified in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of the syllabus detailed thereunder". Wherein in the said judgment, it was also held that "driver did not have a licence as required under Act and Rules to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods - Transport vehicle driving licence produced by driver, admittedly did not have required endorsement. Insurance Company was rightly held to be liable to pay compensation to claimants and recover it from owner of oi-tanker." 9. Admittedly, the petitioner therein is having driving license only to drive LMV, HGV and HPV and he was not authorized to drive the hazardous heavy goods vehicle. Therefore, it is in clear violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the terms and conditions of the policy. As such the Insurance Company is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35098 MFA No. 7501 of 2016 not liable to pay the compensation, as per the citation reported in the National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Swaran Singh and Others2 case. As the injured claimant is a third party, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to invoke the principles of pay and recovery against the Insurance Company. 10. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 21.06.2016 passed in ECA.No.245/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is set aside. iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,91,923/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum 2 AIR 2004 SC 1531 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35098 MFA No. 7501 of 2016 within one month from the date of this order. iv) On such deposit, the appellant/petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with accrued interest on it. If at all the Insurance Company has deposited any amount, it is directed to deposit the balance amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. v) The Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47