Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunath vs Smt. Gangamma on 14 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25985
MFA No. 8599 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8599/2013 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SRI MANJUNATH
S/O E.DURAGAPPA
AGED MAJOR
OWNER OF VEHICLE
RESIDING AT N.H.ROAD,
ANANDAPURA, SAGARA TALUK
SHIMOGA-577401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHESH B.J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by 1. SMT. GANGAMMA
ANNAPURNA G
W/O DODDAPPA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SINCE DECEASED
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY LR'S
OF RESPONDENT NO.2.
2. SRI DODDAPPA
S/O GIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
KURUBA CASTE, AGRICULTURIST, GOGGA VILLAGE
RESIDING AT GOGGA VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHOWDARAKERI
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577401
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25985
MFA No. 8599 of 2013
HC-KAR
3. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
INDUSTRIAL NAGAR, JAIPUR, RAJASTAN,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGEND BRANCH
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MONARCH CHAMBER
3RD FLOOR, INFANTRY CHAMBER
SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560053.
4. MALLIKARJUNA
S/O HIRIYAPPA B.,
AGED MAJOR
DRIVER
RESIDENT OF
GOWTHAMPURA VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK-577401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH S.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R4 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 25.03.2024, R2 IS TREATED
AS LR'S OF R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.03.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.70/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, ITINERARY, SHIKARIPURA.
THIS APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 03.06.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25985
MFA No. 8599 of 2013
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the owner (respondent No.2) challenging the judgment and award dated 22nd March 2013, passed by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl.MACT, Shikaripura (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.70/2011.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The Brief facts of the case of both the parties before the Tribunal are as under :
It was the case of the claimants that on 16.05.2011, one Giddaiah, son of the claimants, was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-15-L-6848, from Shikaripura side towards Honnali side, with a pillion rider by name Kiran. At about 12.00 noon, when they reached near Muddenahalli cross, the driver of the offending lorry bearing registration No.KA-04-B-5468 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and hit the motorcycle of Giddiah. As a result, both the riders of -4- NC: 2025:KHC:25985 MFA No. 8599 of 2013 HC-KAR the motorcycle fell down and Giddaiah sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot.
4. It was the further case of the claimants that deceased Giddaiah was aged 28 years, he was a Press reporter and also agriculturist. He was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Claimants being the parents were depending upon his earnings. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.20 lakhs.
5. Respondent No.1 was the driver and respondent No.2 was the owner of the said offending lorry. Both have filed common written statement denying the contentions of the claimants. It was further contended that accident occurred due to negligence of rider of the motorcycle and not by the driver of the offending lorry. The said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and policy of insurance was in force. Therefore, if any compensation is awarded, respondent No.3 be directed to pay the said amount. With these reasons, they prayed to dismiss the claim petition. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:25985 MFA No. 8599 of 2013 HC-KAR
6. Respondent No.3-insurer filed its written statement denying the contentions of the claimants and it also denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of policy of insurance. It also further contended that accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider and he had no valid and effective driving licence. With these reasons, respondent No.3 prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination.
8. The Tribunal recorded the evidence. Claimants to prove their case, examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW- 2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-13. Respondents have examined three witnesses as RW-1 to RW-3 and marked documents as Exs.R-1 to R-4.
9. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, decided MVC.No.70/2011 and MVC.No.62/2012 (connected matter which was filed by the pillion rider) by a common judgment -6- NC: 2025:KHC:25985 MFA No. 8599 of 2013 HC-KAR dated 22nd March 2013 and awarded compensation of Rs.6,91,000/- to the claimants in MVC.No.70/2011. The Tribunal held that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and it also found that, it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance, therefore, directed the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.2 to pay the said amount of compensation. The same is challenged by respondent No.2 in the present appeal.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for both the parties.
11. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 (owner) contends that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 had licence to drive the lorry, which was in force from 18.01.2008 to 17.01.2011 and subsequently after the accident, it was renewed on 19.05.2011. The accident occurred on 16.05.2011. His licence was not cancelled and he was not disqualified from driving the said class of vehicle. Under these circumstances, it cannot be considered that, as -7- NC: 2025:KHC:25985 MFA No. 8599 of 2013 HC-KAR on the date of the accident, driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence.
12. Learned counsel further contended that, at the time of appointing respondent No.1- driver, respondent No.2 verified his driving licence and it was in force up to 17.01.2011 and thereafter, when he enquired with respondent No.1, he told that he gave the licence for renewal; He believed the said words of respondent No.1 and permitted him to drive lorry. He took all the care to see that the person holding valid license to drive the lorry. There was no lapse on the part of respondent No.2. Therefore, fastening of liability on respondent No.2 by the Tribunal is erroneous.
13. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Swaran Singh and others,1 and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nagappa @ Nagaraja and others -vs- Ravi 1 AIR 2004 SC 1531 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:25985 MFA No. 8599 of 2013 HC-KAR Kupaluru and others2. Learned counsel also relied upon the reported judgment of this Court in the case of K.U.Appaiah -vs- Master Sanoof and anothers3, and also relied upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pascal Dias -vs- Srinivas D Kamath and others4.
14. Learned counsel further submits that, in all the above said judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, as well as this Court held that, in case of expiry of driving licence and renewal of the said driving licence within the period stated in the provisions of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `the M.V.Act'), it shall be considered that the driver was not disqualified from driving of the vehicle and it is for the purpose of fastening of the liability on the insurer, it is to be considered as the driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. Therefore, the present case is covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as well as 2 MFA.No.103680/2015 C/w MA.No.103681/2015 dated 08.02.2019 3 MFA.No.6099/2012 dated 06.07.2023 4 MFA.No.3892/2014 dated 09.08.2024.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:25985 MFA No. 8599 of 2013 HC-KAR this Court. The Tribunal has not considered these points while deciding the matter. Therefore, fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle is erroneous. Therefore, prayed to set aside the same and sought for a direction to respondent No.3-insurer to pay the said amount of compensation.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer vehemently contended that, as per the provisions of Section 3, Section 181 and Section 15 of M.V.Act, as on the date of the accident, if the driver of the vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence, then it shall be considered as he had no valid licence to drive the vehicle. Even under Section 15 of M.V.Act, if it is renewed within the prescribed period mentioned under Section 15 of M.V.Act, then the renewal shall come into effect from the date of the renewal and not with retrospective effect i.e., from the date of expiry of the licence. Under those circumstances, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation and it is a breach of terms and conditions of policy of insurance.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25985 MFA No. 8599 of 2013 HC-KAR
16. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and others,5. He further submits that the Tribunal has considered these points and rightly fastened the liability on respondent No.2/owner of the offending lorry to pay the said amount of compensation. The said finding is proper and in accordance with law, hence does not call for any interference by this Court. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
17. Fact of the accident and the death of Giddaiah due to the accident, are not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. The Tribunal after assessing the evidence available on record, held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and due to the impact of the accident, Giddaiah sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. 5 (2008) 12 SCC 701
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25985 MFA No. 8599 of 2013 HC-KAR
18. The Tribunal after considering the contentions of the parties, awarded the compensation. That is also not seriously disputed by the appellant herein. The claimants have not filed any appeal regarding quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no need to consider the said point also.
19. The Tribunal in issue No.2 discussed in detail about the driving licence, validity of the driving licence and renewal of the said driving licence etc., The said facts are not in serious dispute. Respondent No.1 - driver of the said lorry had valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle, which was in force from 18.01.2008 to 17.01.2011. Accident occurred on 16.05.2011. Two days after the accident, driver of the offending lorry got it renewed, which was in force from 19.05.2011 to 18.05.2014 and as on the date of accident, he had no valid and effective driving licence.
20. Respondent No.2 in his evidence has stated that before appointing respondent No.1 as the driver of the said
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25985 MFA No. 8599 of 2013 HC-KAR lorry, he made detailed enquiry about the driving licence and verified that he had driving licence to drive the vehicle, which was in force from 18.01.2008 to 17.01.2011 and on subsequent enquiry, the driver told him that he had applied for renewal of the said licence and it would be renewed, and believing his words, he kept quite. He made all the efforts to see that his vehicle should be driven by a driver who had valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle.
21. In Swaran Singh's case (supra), the three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court considered the question of driving licence under three headings and one among them was "that licence held, but validity whereof has expired as on the date of the accident and that was renewed after the date of the accident" and discussing on that topic, relying on so many earlier judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, held that, in case of renewal of licence, without disqualifying of the driver for holding the licence as provided under Section 15 of the Act, if such renewal is made, then it should be considered as the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid and
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25985 MFA No. 8599 of 2013 HC-KAR effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and the insurer cannot disown its liability on that ground to pay the compensation to the third parties.
22. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nagappa @ Nagaraja (cited supra), also relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and following the law laid down in Swaran Singh's case (supra), held that when the valid driving licence was issued by a competent authority and it was expired and was not renewed and in the interregnum period, if the accident took place and after that, if the licence is renewed, then, the said licence shall be held to be valid licence and as on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was believed to be having valid driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle and on that count, insurer cannot disown its liability to pay the compensation. The same judgment is followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.U.Appaiah (cited supra) and in the case of Pascal Dias (cited supra).
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25985 MFA No. 8599 of 2013 HC-KAR
23. In the above cited judgments, it is consistently held that, if the driver of the vehicle had valid and effective driving licence and it was expired at the time of accident, thereafter if it is renewed, then, in such an event, if it is renewed as per the provisions of Section 15 of M.V.Act, it shall be considered as valid licence and insurer cannot disown its liability to pay the compensation.
24. The principles of law laid down in the above said judgments squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurer in the case of Vidhyadhar Mahariwala (cited supra), the facts are slightly different and it was rendered by two Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh's case (supra), wherein in detail Section 15 of M.V.Act was discussed and held that, in such an event, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation and it would not amount to breach of terms and conditions of policy of the insurance, is applicable to the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25985 MFA No. 8599 of 2013 HC-KAR facts of the present case. The same judgment is followed in Srinivas D Kamath's case (supra) and in Nagappa @ Nagaraja's case (supra).
25. In the present case, the respondent No.2 in his evidence has explained that he took all care and caution he had taken before appointing respondent No.1 as the driver of the said lorry and also stated that driver of the lorry informed him that he had given the licence for renewal before the expiry of the said licence. Believing the words of the driver of the lorry, he kept quite. Under those circumstances, the principle of law laid down in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), is aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly insurer has to pay compensation and it cannot disown its liability. These judgments were not brought to the notice of Tribunal. Hence, not considered. For above discussions, insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the lorry.
26. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25985
MFA No. 8599 of 2013
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The Appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated
22nd March 2013, passed by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl.MACT, Shikaripura, in MVC No.70/2011, is modified.
iii) The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
iv) The respondent No.3 - being the insurer shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award.
v) The remaining portion of the award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered.
vi) Whatever amount deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to him on due acknowledgment.
Draw award accordingly.
Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/-
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1