Savita Hegde W/O Deceased Dr. Vishwanath Vs Gajanan S/O Shivaram Naik

D/O. DECEASED DR. VISHWANATH SHIVARAM HEGDE, AGE: 24 YRS, OCC: H/W., R/O. MAROLEKERI HADINBAL, POST: HADINBAL, TAL: HONNAVAR-581334, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BANGALORE.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12825-DB MFA No. 102252 of 2016

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AND:

¶22

GAJANAN S/O. SHIVARAM NAIK, REGISTERED OWNER OF BOLERO MAXI TRUCK BSIII REGISTRATION NO.KA-47/5673, R/O. HERVALI, POST: CHIKKANKOD, TQ: HONNAVAR-581334, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶23

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL UDUPI DIVISION UDUPI, DIST: UDUPI, KARNATAKA-576101.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. S. P. KANDAGAL, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADV. FOR R2)

¶26

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.08.2015 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.137/2014 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT HONAVAR ITINERARY COURT AT BHATKAL IN SO FAR AS DENYING THE COMPENSATION IN EXCESS OF RS. 29,10,000/- AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL TO MEET THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND

¶29

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12825-DB MFA No. 102252 of 2016

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

¶34

This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 19.08.2015 passed in MVC No.137/2014 by the Additional MACT, Honavar (Itinerary Court at Bhatkal (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

¶35

Heard Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that this appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award of the Tribunal only on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in saddling the liability to pay compensation on the respondent No.1 -owner of the vehicle on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive a LMV Goods vehicle. The said issue is no more res-integra . It is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited¹ , which is affirmed by

¶36

the larger Bench in the case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General

¶37

1 (2017) 14 SCC 663

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12825-DB MFA No. 102252 of 2016

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Rambha Devi and Others.² Hence,

¶42

he seeks to allow the appeal by shifting the liability on the insurer of the vehicle and directing to pay the compensation.

¶43

Per contra, Sri.Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the order of the Tribunal and seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶44

We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶45

The Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation to the appellant. However, the respondent-owner of the vehicle was directed to pay the compensation on the ground that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not having valid and effective driving license to drive LMV Goods vehicle. The finding of the Tribunal at paragraph No.22 is extracted herein below:

¶46

“22. In the present case there is clear evidence to show that the vehicle involved in the accident is a light goods vehicle and the driver of the said vehicle at that

¶47

2 Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018 dated 06.11.2024

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12825-DB MFA No. 102252 of 2016

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

time was having driving license to drive light motor vehicle and motor cycle with gear, he has obtained the driving license to drive the light motor vehicle –goods vehicle with effect from 10.10.2014. It is also clear that the driver was issued driving license on 09.03.2009 which is after the amendment to Central Motor Vehicle Rules dated 28.03.2001. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. Accordingly I answer issue No.2 in the negative.”

¶51

We have perused the Ex.R4-Copy of ‘B’ Register Extract of the vehicle involved in the accident. The vehicle involved in the accident is KA-47/5673. The LMV Goods Vehicle, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., the laden weight of the said vehicle is 1450 kgs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan referred supra and in the case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. referred supra considered the said issue, and in the case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. referred supra at paragraph No.131 held as under:

¶52

“131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:-

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12825-DB MFA No. 102252 of 2016

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross 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, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.

¶56

(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 passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’.

¶57

(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.”

¶58

In view of the enunciation of law laid down by the

¶59

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case on hand, the vehicle involved in the accident is less than laden weight of 7,500 kilogram. Hence the aforesaid judgment is applicable to the case on hand. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12825-DB MFA No. 102252 of 2016

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶65

ii. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is set aside insofar as saddling of the liability and direction to pay the compensation to the respondent No.1 is concerned by further directing the respondent No.2-Insurance Company to pay the compensation as ordered by the Tribunal.

¶66

iii. Registry to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶67

iv. No orders as to costs.

¶68

Sd/(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶69

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE

¶70

RKM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

Savita Hegde W/O Deceased Dr. Vishwanath v. Gajanan S/O Shivaram Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savita Hegde W/O Deceased Dr. Vishwanath v. Gajanan S/O Shivaram Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivanand S/O Prahlad Anavekar Vs K S Hanchinal

Jayashree W/O Ramesh Keralli Vs the Deputy Commissioner

The State of Karnataka Vs Harijan Yerriswamy S/O Smt Basamma

Shri Anand S/O Siddappa Yaligar Vs Shri Rajshekar Hallur

Shri Devappa Shankar Chougula Vs Mr Hidayatullah S/O Gulab Momin

Shri Shantaling S/O. Sharanappa Patil Vs the Deputy Commissioner