- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010017152020 NC: 2026:KHC:39393 MFA No. 1962 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1962 OF 2020 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. SOFIA D' SOUZA W/O ROCKY D' SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT MATHEW APARTMENT, B WING, 1ST FLOOR, OPP: MANDLI TALACO, BHAYANDAR WEST, MUMBAI PIN - 401 101. 2. MRS. MARY CYNTHIA RODRIGUES W/O CYRIL D' SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NITHYADAR NIVAS, LORTEPADAVU HOUSE, KASABA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT PIN - 574 219. 3. MR. SUNIL RODRIGUES S/O MR. ANCEL PASKAL RODRIGUES, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT D NO.3-113, KONNEPADAVU HOUSE, HOSABETTU VILLAGE AND POST, MOODABIDRI, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT PIN - 575 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010017152020 NC: 2026:KHC:39393 MFA No. 1962 of 2020 AND: 1. MR. SHEKAR S/O RUKMAYYA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT: D NO1-11, KAITHRODY HOUSE, KOILA VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT PIN - 574 219. 2. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE 3RD FLOOR, LALBAGH TOWER, BALLALBAGH, M.G. ROAD, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 19.09.2025 APPEAL ABATED IN R/O R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1079/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010017152020 NC: 2026:KHC:39393 MFA No. 1962 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 02.06.2019 passed in MVC No.1079/2016 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and I Addl. Senior Civil Judge. Mangaluru, D.K. (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition in respect of claimant No.3 by awarding global compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- and dismissed the claim petition in respect of claimant Nos.1 and 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are, on 28.02.2016, when Ancel Paskal Rodrigues (deceased in this case) was standing by the side of Bantwal-Moodabidri road near Loretopadavu Church, Kasaba Hobli, Bantwal Taluk, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19-EJ-4180 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Ancel Paskal Rodrigues. As a result, he sustained injuries and thereafter he was shifted to Thumbe Father Muller Hospital where he was provided with first aid treatment and then shifted to Father Muller Medical College Hospital, Kankanady, Mangalore, for - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010017152020 NC: 2026:KHC:39393 MFA No. 1962 of 2020 further treatment. Later, he succumbed to the injuries. As such, the legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition claiming compensation for the accidental death of deceased. 3. The Tribunal, upon assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition as stated supra. Further, the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company and directed the insured to pay the compensation. The said judgment and award is challenged in this appeal by the claimants. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred by exonerating the Insurance Company and directed the insured to pay the compensation. According to her, the said finding of the Tribunal is incorrect both factually and legally. By placing reliance on Ex.R8-LLR, she contended that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending motorcycle had valid LLR. In such circumstances, the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010017152020 NC: 2026:KHC:39393 MFA No. 1962 of 2020 Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. She also contended that the person who accompanied the rider had valid driving licence as per Ex.R7. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. She further contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred by not awarding compensation on the head of loss of dependency. According to her, though the deceased was 80 years at the time of accident, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar vs. Sanjay Prasad - 2025 Supreme (Online) SC 5470, the Tribunal ought to have been awarded compensation on the head of loss of dependency. Accordingly, she prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal is justified in exonerating the Insurance Company. According to the learned counsel, though the rider of the motorcycle had possessed LLR, he was not accompanied the person who had valid driving licence at the time of accident. As such, there is a violation of Sections 2(2) and 3 of Motor Vehicles Act and also violated the policy conditions. In such circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in exonerating the Insurance Company. He further contended that - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010017152020 NC: 2026:KHC:39393 MFA No. 1962 of 2020 since the deceased was aged 80 years at the time of accident and was suffering from old age ailments, there cannot be any loss of dependency to the family members. Moreover, all the family members are majors and they are having their own independent income. In such circumstance, the Tribunal is justified in not awarding the compensation on the head of loss of dependency. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and award so also the other documents made available before this Court. 8. As could be gathered from records, the occurrence of accident and death of deceased in the said accident are not in dispute. Further, the coverage of insurance policy to the offending motorcycle is also not in dispute. The Tribunal, by considering the evidence of RWs.1 to 3 held that the driver of motorcycle had no valid driving licence, as he was possessed only LLR at the time of accident. As such, the LLR cannot be construed as a valid driving licence. The Co-ordinate Bench of - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010017152020 NC: 2026:KHC:39393 MFA No. 1962 of 2020 this Court in MFA No.20655/2011 dated 21.08.2019 held in paragraph Nos.20 to 28 as under: "20. As per Section 2(10) of the Act, it is defined that “driving licence” means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. 21. Section 3 under Chapter II of the Act provides necessity of driving licence to drive the vehicle on the road. Rule 3 of Chapter II of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules provides the instructions, which reads as under:- “3. General.- the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3 shall not apply to a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive, so long as - (a) such person is the holder of an effective learner’s licence issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle; (b) such person is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle; and (c) there is painted, in the front and the rear of the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front and the rear, the letter “L” in red on a white background as under: L Note.- The painting on the vehicle or on the plate or card shall not be less than 18 centimetres and the letter “L” shall not be less than 10 centimetres high, 2 centimetres wide at the bottom: - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010017152020 NC: 2026:KHC:39393 MFA No. 1962 of 2020 Provided that a person, while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving a motorcycle (with or without a side-car attached), shall not carry any other person on the motorcycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b)” 22. The proviso of the Rule defines that a person, while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving a motorcycle (with or without a side-car attached), shall not carry any other person on the motorcycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b) wherein as per 3(b) of the Rules says the instructor is required to sit in a position to control or stop the vehicle, which means a person who is holding learner’s licence and learning driving of four wheeler vehicle shall always accompany an instructor. 23. As per Rule 24 of the Rules, it defines about the establishment of driving schools and the qualification of the instructor. Rule 24(3) (v) of the Rules defines as follows:- (v) the vehicles are available exclusively for purposes of imparting instruction and all such vehicles, except motorcycles, are fitted with dual control facility to enable the instructor to control or stop the vehicle. (underlined by me) 24. On bare reading of Rule 24 (3) (v) of the Rules clearly provides that the instructor shall accompany with the learner while driving the motor vehicles having dual control facility to enable the instructor to control or stop the vehicle, whereas the motorcycle was excluded or exempted and it does not require the instructor to be accompanied. However, Section 3 of the Act defines necessity of driving licence. Proviso to Rule 3 enables the rider of the motorcycle shall not carry any other person on the motorcycle as pillion rider except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b), which shows the person holding driving licence shall be accompanied with a person who holds a learner’s licence for the motor vehicle but not motorcycle. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010017152020 NC: 2026:KHC:39393 MFA No. 1962 of 2020 25. In this case, admittedly, respondent No.1 was holding learner’s licence as per Ex.P14 and the deceased was holding a driving licence as on the date of the accident. The same was elucidated by the respondent’s counsel in the cross-examination of P.W.1. In his evidence, P.W.1 has clearly stated that the deceased was headmistress, who was also having motorcycle and she had a driving licence to ride the motorcycle. On the date of accident, the deceased was traveling with respondent No.1 as a pillion rider, who was holding a driving licence. There is no pleading or defence set up by the respondent/insurer before the Tribunal by taking contention that the deceased was not holding a driving licence and she traveled only as a pillion rider. When there is no pleading or defence setup before the Tribunal, the insurer has no right to take such a plea for the first time before this Court in the appeal. That apart, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in catena of decisions has held that the learner’s licence is also a valid driving licence. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Mandar Madhav Tambe, reported in LAWS (SC) 1995 1237 has held that the learner’s licence is also a valid licence. In another decision in the case of Mahamooda v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, reported in LAWS (SC) 2004 9 57, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a person drives a vehicle by holding a learner’s licence, the insurers liability exists. The learned counsel has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Sheela Devi and others, reported in (2018) Acci.C.R. 249 (P & H), in which even the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has also taken a similar view that the learner’s licence is also a valid licence. Even in the case of Shivpal Singh v. Lal Chand and others, reported in 2010 ACJ 1120, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has taken a similar view that the learner’s licence is also a valid licence. 27. Learned counsel for the insurer has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pappu and others (stated supra) wherein there was no valid driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was driven by the - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010017152020 NC: 2026:KHC:39393 MFA No. 1962 of 2020 person who did not have any licence at all. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the insurance company shall pay the compensation and recover it from the owner of the vehicle. The said case is not applicable to the case on hand. In another case, National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Masabi, reported in 1991 ACJ 173, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the person driving the vehicle, holding learner’s licence only for receiving instructions and he cannot drive transport vehicle for hire. This case is also not applicable to the case on hand. In another case, in Civil Appeal No.1537/2009 between Bhuwan Sing and M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, reported in 2009 ACJ 1426, the driver had a learner’s licence but it was expired as on the date of accident. Therefore, the said judgment is also not applicable to the case on hand. In another case, Electrical Engineering Agencies and another v. New India Assurance Company Ltd and another, reported in 2006 ACJ 1957, the owner has not established that the rider was holding learner’s licence and conditions were duly complied while driving the vehicle. In the said case respondent No.1 had a valid learner’s licence and the pillion rider, the deceased, was holding driving licence and there was defence setup by the respondent/insurer. Therefore, this case also would not come to the aid of the insurance company’s contention. In another unreported judgment in MFA No.3604/2008, between Branch Manager ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. and Hanamantha and another, the driver was driving four wheeler vehicle and there was violation of Section 3(2) of the Act as well as Rule 3 of the Motor Vehicle Rules and therefore, this judgment is also not applicable to the case on hand. Another case i.e. National Insurance Company vs. Challa Bharatamma and others (stated supra), pertaining to the permit, is also not applicable to the case on hand. 28. On the other hand, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble High Courts in the case of Mandar Madhav Tambe, (stated supra), Mahamooda (stated supra), Sheela Devi and others (stated supra) and Shivapal Singa (stated supra) the licence held by respondent No.1, even though it was a learner’s licence, but it is a valid licence. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010017152020 NC: 2026:KHC:39393 MFA No. 1962 of 2020 Even the Central Motor Vehicle Rules strictly contemplates accompanying of an instructor in a motor vehicle, but excludes the motorcycle. Therefore, I hold that a learner’s licence is also a valid licence, the rider or the learner need not accompany any instructor for motorcycle, as required in case of four wheeler motor vehicle, which require instructor. Therefore, the contention taken up by the insurer that the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence and she was holding only learner’s licence to ride a motorcycle on the road, cannot be accepted. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has rightly concluded that the learner’s licence held by respondent No.1 is a valid licence and has rightly fastened the liability on the insurer. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal regarding fastening of liability on the insurer does not call for any interference of this Court. 9. While coming to such conclusion, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Mandar Madhav Tambe, reported in LAWS (SC) 1995 1237 and other judgments. 10. Applying the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench in the above judgment to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the above judgment squarely applies to the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, I am of the view that the findings of the Tribunal in respect of exonerating the Insurance Company does not hold good and - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010017152020 NC: 2026:KHC:39393 MFA No. 1962 of 2020 same is liable to be modified and Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 11. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation on the head of loss of dependency is concerned, on careful perusal of the evidence on record, admittedly, the deceased was aged about 80 years at the time of accident and was suffering from old age ailments and was getting treatment at Father Muller Hospital and having health card to get treatment in the said Hospital. Admittedly, the claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the married daughters resided in their respective matrimonial house and claimant No.3 is the son of deceased aged 39 years. The claimants were not depended on the income of the deceased, as the deceased was aged 80 years and was suffering from old age ailments. In such circumstance, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the claimants do not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. However, on the head of loss of consortium and loss of estate, a reasonable amount has to be enhanced. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010017152020 NC: 2026:KHC:39393 MFA No. 1962 of 2020 12. The claimants, being the daughters and son of the deceased, they would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “loss of consortium” i.e., in all Rs.1,45,200/- (48,400 x 3) and claimant No.3/appellant No.3 is also entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the “conventional heads”. 13. The claimants Nos.1 and 2/appellant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled only for the consortium amount granted above i.e., 48,400/- each. 14. Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.) 1. Loss of Consortium 1,45,200 2. Conventional Heads 36,300 Total 1,81,500 15. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.1,81,500/- as against Rs.1,35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. In view of the order dated - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010017152020 NC: 2026:KHC:39393 MFA No. 1962 of 2020 20.02.2026, the claimants-appellants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 483 days in filing this appeal. 16. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The apportionment of compensation amount shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2