Allowed

Manjunath M v. Mr Mahadevaiah

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2026MFA/1986/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Owner of an autorickshaw appealed against a motor accident compensation award challenging the Tribunal's pay and recovery direction against him on the ground that the driver lacked a proper licence. Following Mukund Dewangan, the High Court held the driver's LMV licence sufficed, set aside the pay and recovery order, and allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside to the extent of pay and recovery; other findings undisturbed; any amount deposited by the appellant-owner to be refunded on due identification.

Manjunath M Vs Mr Mahadevaiah — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:33749 MFA No. 1986 of 2020

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1986 OF 2020(MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANJUNATH M S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O MALLASANDRA R.V COLLAGE POST KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU-560 060

¶10

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.18 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS OPP: GOVERNMENT SCHOOL MYLASANDRA, BENGALORE-560 059

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH N.V, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

MR. MAHADEVAIAH S/O LATE MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶16

RAJESHWARI R.S W/O MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT KUNDUR VILLAGE

¶17

BOTH RESPONDENT 1 & 2 ARE R/AT KASABA HOBLI

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33749 MFA No. 1986 of 2020

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MAYAGANAHALLI POST GANGARAJANAHALLI RAMANAGARA-562 159

¶21

BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD PRIDE QUADRA NO.30, 3^RD FLOOR BALLARY RAOD, HEBBALA BENGALURU-560 024 REP. BY MANAGER

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R1 - SERVED - UNREPRESENTED R2 - VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 13.11.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 6735/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-13), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 13,39,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT IN THE TRIBUNAL.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

The owner of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal challenging the saddling of liability on him in M.V.C.No.6735/2016 dated 25.10.2019 by the Addl. Small Causes Judge and MACT at Bangalore, (SCCH-13).

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33749 MFA No. 1986 of 2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The factual matrix of the case are, the claimants have filed claim petition before the Tribunal for the accident occurred on 13.06.2016 at about 11:50 a.m. when deceasedChaitra was proceeding in Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-41/A-8357 on BGS Hospital Main Road, Kengeri, opposite to Muneshwara Temple. It is the case that the driver of said Autorickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of applying sudden break, the auto turtled and Chaitra sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Hospital, thereafter, she succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital. Accordingly, the claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased.

¶32

The Tribunal on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.13,39,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the same, the owner of the vehicle filed this appeal questioning the pay and recovery order of the Tribunal.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

¶34

counsel for respondent No.3.

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33749 MFA No. 1986 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The accident in question and coverage of insurance policy for the offending vehicle are not in dispute. As the only point raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred while passing the order of pay and recovery by the Insurance Company after making good of compensation to the claimants. According to him, the driver had a valid driving license to drive LMV as on the date of accident. He placed the said license at Ex.R3 and subsequently, he obtained license to drive LMV non-transport three wheeler vehicle. However, the same was not considered by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal in respect of pay and recovery.

¶38

Per contra , learned counsel Sri B. Pradeep for the Insurance Company would contend that though it is claimed that he had a valid driving license to drive the LMV vehicle at the time of accident, admittedly, he obtained license at later stage and the Tribunal justified in holding that he had no such driving license and Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the compensation from the owner. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33749 MFA No. 1986 of 2020

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the judgment and documents made available before this Court.

¶42

As could be gathered from records, the question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this case has no res integra by virtue of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court

¶43

3668 , wherein at para No.46 (ii) it is held as under:

¶44

"46. xxx

¶45

(i) xxx

¶46

(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33749 MFA No. 1986 of 2020

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

(iii) xxx (iv) xxx"

¶50

On bear reading of the above findings of the judgment, I am of the considered view that the offending vehicle comes in the category of LMV. Since the driver had a valid driving license at the time of accident, Insurance Company is liable to pay the same. As such, the impugned judgment is set-aside to the extent of pay and recovery and the other findings of the Tribunal are not disturbed. The appeal is accordingly allowed .

¶51

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal had already been deposited.

¶52

It is further made clear that the amount, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to him on due identification.

¶53

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

¶55

HKV

Manjunath M v. Mr Mahadevaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath M v. Mr Mahadevaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Javaraiah Vs Shashikala K

Annappa Vs Prakash G

Sri K J Madhu Vs District Surgeon

Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar Vs the Manager

The Branch Manager Vs Sri K S Shivashankara @ Shivashankaraiah

The Divisional Controller Vs Ashok @ Ashoka G