- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2279/2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND BD ROAD, CHITRADURGA REP BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER. ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO.28 CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. SWETHA W/O LATE MAHANTESHA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. 2. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE BHEEMAPPA @ SOPPINARU BHEEMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT. AVARGERE VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577003. 3. C. NARAYANA S/O CHANNAPPA Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 DRIVER, C/O MUNI RAJU S/O RAMAIAH, NO.169 MADAVARA VILLAGE NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 4. RAFIQ PASHA S/O EMTIYAZ AHAMED AGE 35 YEARS R/O BALLUR, ALISH COMPOUND OPP. EPPE ANJANEYA TEMPLE ADIPET, NELAMANGALA BENGALURU. 5. HEMANTHANAIK S/O HANUMANTHANAIK AGE 33 YEARS, DRIVER R/O CHATTOBANAHALLI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. 6. M. RANJITH KUMAR S/O MUTHUSWAMY AGE 33 YEARS R/OF. CHATTOBANAHALLI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577514. 7. THE MANAGER M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VIVEKANANDA CORNER DESHPANDE NAGAR HUBBALLI-580029. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH H.C. ADV., FOR R1 SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV., FOR R7 V/O/DTD:11.10.2019, R1 IS TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R2 V/O/DTD:23.11.2023, NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W R4, R5, R6 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) - - - - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.40/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND VII ADDITIONAL MACT, DAVANAGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,61,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION UNTIL REALIZATION. THIS M.F.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited challenging the judgment and award dated 11.01.2018 passed in M.V.C.No.40/2014 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and VII Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Davangere, (for short 'Tribunal') seeking for higher compensation. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that on 17.04.2013 at about 9.45 P.M. near - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 Ganesh Temple, Bada Cross, Davanagere, deceased Mahantesh was proceeding to Avargere on a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-17/EA-0422 from Shimagondanahalli Village, a tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA- 15/T-5839 and Reg. No.KA-15/T-5840 (hereinafter referred to as 'tractor and trailer') was parked on the highway without any indicator. At that time, an Eicher bearing Reg. No.KA-52/4753 (hereinafter referred to as 'lorry') driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The wife of the deceased filed a claim petition in MVC.No.40/2014, which was allowed and the compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant-Insurance company has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the saddling of the entire liability on the appellant. 3. Sri.Ashok N. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the material on record in its proper - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 perspective. It is submitted that after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against both the driver of the tractor and trailer as well as the lorry, but the Tribunal has erroneously fastened the entire liability on the appellant i.e the insurer of the lorry. It is further submitted that the driver of the tractor and trailer had parked the tractor without any indicator and contributed to the accident but the same has not been considered by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously fastened the liability on the appellant though the lorry involved is a Medium Goods Vehicle as per Ex.P5 and the driver of the said vehicle was clearly only eligible to drive LMV-NT, which is in clear violation of the conditions of the policy. It is contended that in view of the violation of the insurance policy, the liability ought to have been fastened on the owner of the lorry and not the appellant. It is further contended that the interest on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also on a higher side and the same is required to be re-assessed. In support of his contentions, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LIMITED Vs. RAMBHA DEVI AND OTHERS1 and the decisions of this Court in the cases of KUMARI JYOTHI AND OTHERS Vs. MOHD. USMAN ALI AND OTHERS2 and THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KIRAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER.3 Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri.Prakash H.C., learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order after considering the material on record in its proper perspective, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 supports the impugned order and 1 Civil Appeal No.841/2018 dtd 06.11.2024 2 ILR 2002 KAR 893 3 MFA No.4371/2018 and connected matter dated 23.11.2022 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 submits that the tractor and trailer was parked to the side, at a fair distance from the accident spot as the axle of the tractor had broken down. It is submitted that the tractor and trailer was not involved in causing the accident, which has been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the appeal. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, the learned counsel for the respondent No.7 and meticulously perused the material available on record including the Tribunal records. 7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference?" 8. The records indicate that on 17.04.2013 at about 9.45 P.M near Ganesh Temple, Bada Cross, Davanagere, deceased Mahantesh was proceeding to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 Avargere on a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-17-EA-0422 from Shimagondanahalli Village, the tractor and trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-15-T-5839 and KA-15-T-5840 was parked on the highway without any indicator. At that time, the driver of an Eicher-lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52- 4753 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The wife and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition in MVC.No.40/2014 seeking for compensation. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8, whereas the respondents examined RW-1 to RW-3 and also got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R10. The Tribunal, on consideration of the material on record proceeded to allow the petition and awarded the compensation. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the tractor and trailer was parked on the road without any indicator, which had contributed to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 accident, hence, the contributory negligence ought to be assigned on the driver of the tractor. However, Ex.R7- sketch of the accident depicts that the spot of the accident is 60 feet away from the spot of the parked tractor and that there was sufficient space between the spot of the accident and the parked location of the tractor and trailer. Though, the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the tractor and trailer, the very same charge sheet indicates that the tractor and trailer was parked towards the right side on the mud road. Though, the parking of the tractor and trailer without any indicator amounts to negligence, the same does not create a presumption of nexus between the negligent parking and the accident caused. The Tribunal has also rightly considered Ex.P5-IMV report and the evidence of witnesses, to come to a conclusion that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the respondent No.5. The fact that the indicator of the tractor was not turned on at the time of the accident does not ipso facto create a presumption against the respondent - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 No.5 for contributory negligence. Hence, the said finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 10. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the liability ought to be saddled on the respondent No.5-owner of the lorry as respondent No.3-driver of the lorry was not in possession of an effective driving license to drive a MGV ('Medium Goods Vehicle') on the date of accident and that the liability must be saddled on the owner of the vehicle, but the Tribunal has erroneously saddled the entire liability on the appellant. A perusal of Ex.P5-IMV report, Ex.R1-policy and the oral evidence of RW-2 clearly indicate the class of the lorry as a 'MGV Vehicle'. Furthermore, Ex.R2-Driving license and Authorization Certificate of N.P.(GOODS) issued by the Transport Department clearly indicates the Gross Vehicle Weight as 8,800 Kilograms. 11. In view of the aforesaid contention, it would be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 Court in the case of BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. referred supra, wherein it is held as under: "130. Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing that the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier paragraphs), expected to be mastered by all drivers are universal – regardless of whether the vehicle falls into “Transport” or “Non-Transport” category, it is the considered opinion of this Court that if the gross vehicle weight is within 7,500 kg - the quintessential common man’s driver Sri, with LMV license, can also drive a “Transport Vehicle”. We are able to reach such a conclusion as none of the parties in this case has produced any empirical data to demonstrate that the LMV driving licence holder, driving a ‘Transport Vehicle’, is a significant cause for road accidents in India. The additional eligibility criteria as specified in MV Act and MV Rules as discussed in this judgment will apply only to such vehicle (‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’), whose gross weight exceeds 7,500 Kg. Our present interpretation on how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statutory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. This will also effectively address the livelihood issues - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 for drivers operating Transport Vehicles (who clock maximum hours behind the wheels), in legally operating “Transport vehicles” (below 7,500 Kg), with their LMV driving license. Perforce Sri must drive responsibly and should have no occasion to be called either a maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he is behind the wheels. Such harmonious interpretation will substantially address the vexed question of law before this Court. 131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:- (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross Page 125 of 126 vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, erickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. (III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. (IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment." 12. The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that a LMV driving license holder is eligible to drive both a 'Transport' as well as a 'Non-Transport' vehicle as long as the Gross Vehicle Weight is within 7,500 Kgs. and that the additional eligibility criteria as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, would be applicable to those vehicles that exceed the gross vehicle weight of 7,500 Kgs. In the instant case, it is clear from the evidence on record that the gross vehicle weight of the lorry is 8,800 Kgs. Therefore, the LMV driving license held by the respondent No.3-driver would not be eligible to drive the lorry and the same is in violation of the insurance policy. Hence, the saddling of liability by the Tribunal on the appellant-Insurance Company is required to be interfered - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 with by saddling the liability on the owner of the vehicle i.e respondent No.4. 13. Furthermore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.NAGENDRA Vs. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD4 and other cases, the appellant-Insurance Company ought to pay the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal and recover the same from the respondent No.4-owner of the lorry. 14. Insofar as the contention with regard to the award of interest on the compensation at 8% p.a. being on a higher side is concerned, the same is required to be interfered with and the interest on the compensation is to be awarded at 6% p.a. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: 4 2025 SCC Online SC 2297 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20001 M.F.A. No.2279/2018 ORDER a) The appeal is allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.40/2014, is modified to an extent that the entire liability to pay the compensation is saddled on the respondent No.4. c) The entire compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment d) The appellant-Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. e) The appellant-Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the award amount along with interest from the respondent No.4 in accordance with law. f) Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. Draw the modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1