National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Yashodha

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SHIVAMOGGA BRANCH, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, # 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560001. REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SMT. C K PARIMALA

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. SEETHARAMA RAO B C, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT YASHODHA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O. LATE. K P UMESHA,

¶15

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

KUM MINCHITHA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O. LATE. K P UMESHA,

¶17

KUM. HARSHITHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D/O. LATE. K P UMESHA,

¶18

RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT KOLAVALLI KOKKOD VILLAGE, UNTOOR KATTE KAIMARA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶19

SRI. ESHWARA NAIKA H R MAJOR IN AGE,

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:25975 MFA No. 482 of 2017

¶21

2 -

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

S/O. RAMA NAIKA, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. RAMAKRISHNAPURA AT AND POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SRI RAVIKUMAR D RESPONDENT NO.5 HEREIN

¶24

SRI. RAVIKUMARA D AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O. SRI. ESHWARA NAIKA H R, R/O. RAMAKRISHNAPURA AT AND POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. M SANDESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI D P PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 R2 & R3 ARE LR’S OF DECEASED R1 V/O DTD 7.7.2025 R5 IS TREATED AS LR OF DECEASED R4 V/O DTD 11.10.2019)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.97/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, THIRTHAHALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,75,385/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

The present appeal is filed by the insurer under Section

¶32

173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988¹ calling in question the

¶33

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1988’

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25975 MFA No. 482 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

judgment and award dated 13.7.2016 passed in MVC No.97/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Additional MACT, Thirthahalli² , wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and assessed the compensation of `7,75,385/- together with interest at 9% p.a.

¶37

The primary contention urged by learned counsel Sri Anup Seetharama Rao appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri B.C.Seetharama Rao, for the appellant/insurer is that the rider of the insured vehicle was the holder of a learner’s licence and having regard to Rule 3(b) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989³ , the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the insurer to pay the compensation awarded. It is further contended that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel Sri M.Sandesh

¶39

Kumar, for respondents/claimants contends that having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶40

2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’

¶41

3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘1989 Rules’

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25975 MFA No. 482 of 2017

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh⁴ ,

¶45

the insurer is liable to pay the compensation awarded. Further, it is contended that the quantum of compensation including the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.

¶46

The submissions of both the learned counsels

¶47

have been considered and the material on record, including the records of the Tribunal, have been perused.

¶48

The questions that arise for consideration are:

¶49

i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal on liability is erroneous and liable to be interfered with?

¶50

ii. Whether the rate of interest awarded is on the higher side?

¶51

Re. question No.(i):

¶52

It is forthcoming that the primary contention urged by the learned counsel for the insurer is that the rider of the insured motorcycle was the holder of a learner’s licence. Reliance was placed on Rule 3(b) of the 1989 Rules.

¶53

Section 3(1) of the Act of 1988, mandates the person driving a motor vehicle in any public place to hold an

¶54

4 (2004) 3 SCC 297

¶55

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25975 MFA No. 482 of 2017

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

effective driving licence. Rule 3 of the 1989 Rules stipulates that Section 3(1) of the Act of 1988 shall not apply to a person, who is the holder of an effective learner’s licence issued to him

¶58

in Form 3. Rule 3(b) states as under:

¶59

“3 General:

¶60

(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; “

¶61

(emphasis supplied)

¶62

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran

¶63

Singh⁴ has held as follows:

¶64

“ 110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows:

¶65

(i)

¶66

xxxxx

¶67

(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree.”

¶68

(emphasis supplied)

¶69

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Felix Correa⁵ was

¶70

considering a fact situation, wherein a claim petition was filed claiming compensation and the driver of the insured motor

¶71

5 ILR 1989 KAR 441

¶72

6 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:25975 MFA No. 482 of 2017

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

cycle had a learner’s lcence. Considering the said fact situation, this Court held as follows:

¶76

“15. The condition that a person duly licenced to drive the vehicle should be by the side of such learner to be able to readily control or stop the vehicle is perhaps not made compulsory in case of & person holding Learner's Licence in respect of a motor-cycle perhaps for the reason that no such person could be accommodated on a two wheeler anywhere else than on its pillion if it has one. Therefore the person sitting on the pillion could not be equated to the driver of a vehicle other than a two wheeler. Thus even where a person possesses a Learner's Licence in case of a motor-cycle as in this case he becomes solely responsible for effectively driving or riding the vehicle, he is in sole control of it and therefore if a person driving a motor-cycle under Learner's Licence can be said to be a person duly licensed" or holding a valid licence would be the next point for consideration.”

¶77

(emphasis supplied)

¶78

In similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Mukkanna v. Smt.Uma & Ors.,⁶ placing reliance on another coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of The Senior Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co.Ltd., Ramdev Galli, Belgaum v. Shri Jyotiba Appaji Shigate & Ors.,⁷ , held that a learner’s licence is a valid licence and the rider of a motorcycle who is the holder of a learner’s

¶79

6 Judgment dated 14.3.2025 passed in MFA No.102906/2014 c/w…

¶80

7 2020(1) Kar.L.J. 656

¶81

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25975 MFA No. 482 of 2017

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

licence need not be accompanied by an instructor, who is the holder of a driving licence.

¶84

In view of the settled position of law as noticed above, the contention on liability putforth by the learned counsel for the insurer is not liable to be accepted.

¶85

Hence, question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the negative .

¶86

Re.question No.(ii):

¶87

With regard to the contention that the rate of interest awarded at 9% is excessive, taking judicial notice of the interest payable towards fixed deposits, it is just and proper to award interest at 7% p.a., on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶88

Accordingly, question No.(ii) framed for

¶89

consideration is answered in the affirmative .

¶90

In view of the aforementioned, the following:

¶91

ORDER

¶92

i. The above appeal is allowed in part;

¶93

ii. The judgment and award dated 13.7.2016

¶94

passed in MVC No.97/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, & JMFC, Additional MACT,

¶95

8 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:25975 MFA No. 482 of 2017

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

Thirthahalli, is modified only to the extent of holding that the claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation `7,75,385/- together with interest at 7% p.a., from the date of petition till date of realization. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered;

¶99

iii. The amount deposited by the appellant and the records be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith;

¶100

iv. The appellant shall deposit the balance compensation within six weeks from today;

¶101

iv. Registry to draw the modified award accordingly.

¶102

No costs.

¶103

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶104

ND