Allowed¶65

Sri Mahadevagowda v. Sri K Veerabhadraswamy

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2026MFA/7395/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, MFA No. 7395 of 2016 (MV-I), CNR KAHC010444362016, decided 16-07-2026 by P Sree Sudha J. Search terms: Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance; Section 14(2)(a) Motor Vehicle Act 1988; Section 173(1) MV Act; light motor vehicle licence covering transport vehicle; no separate endorsement; goods autorickshaw KA-09-A-6643; motorcycle KA-09-EM-5895; accident 30-06-2013; MVC 38/2014 Nanjangud; Cholamandalam General Insurance Mysore; insurer liability restored; interest reduced 9% to 6%; compensation Rs.1,44,000.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- with interest at 6% per annum within one month; on deposit, claimant permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with accrued interest. ¶65

Sri Mahadevagowda Vs Sri K Veerabhadraswamy — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meagre, given the notional income of Rs.4,500 per month and the whole-body disability of 8% taken by it. +2 more

¶36

Court's answer

The claimant's total compensation was fixed at Rs.1,44,000/- (unchanged from the Tribunal award) but the rate of interest was reduced from 9% to 6% per annum, payable from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

This Court found it reasonable to fasten the liability to pay the compensation on the insurance company, reversing the Tribunal's position that the insurer was not liable.

¶59

Key takeaways

Consistent with the relied-upon Mukund Dewangan position (a licence to drive a light motor vehicle covers a transport vehicle of that class without separate endorsement), the driver's licence issued on 04.08.2010 and valid till 03.08.2030 for non-transport vehicles was treated as valid for driving the goods autorickshaw, resolving the Section 14(2)(a) objection.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor accident claims appeal (MFA No. 7395 of 2016, u/s 173(1) MV Act) by the driver and owner against the award dated 30.04.2015 of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, MACT, Nanjangud in MVC No.38/2014, which granted the injured claimant Rs.1,44,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. but absolved the insurer because the driver's licence, though valid till 03.08.2030, covered only non-transport vehicles (Section 14(2)(a), Motor Vehicle Act, 1988). Relying on Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668) — under which a licence to drive a light motor vehicle authorises driving a transport vehicle of that class without separate endorsement — the Court found it reasonable to fasten the liability on Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd., maintained the compensation at Rs.1,44,000/- but reduced interest to 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, allowed the appeal, and directed the insurer to deposit the amount within one month.

¶1

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36655 MFA No. 7395 of 2016

¶2

¶3

CNR: KAHC010444362016

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7395 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI MAHADEVAGOWDA S/O MASANEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT MALLUPURA VILLAGE, BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.

¶11

SRI MASANEGOWDA S/O MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OWNER, R/AT MALLUPURA VILLAGE, BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G S ., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI K VEERABHADRASWAMY S/O KOOSAPPA, AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS, MALLUPURA VILLAGE, BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:36655 MFA No. 7395 of 2016

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CNR: KAHC010444362016

¶23

SEETHAVILAS ROAD, NEAR MARIMALLAPPA COLLEGE ROAD, MYSORE-570 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. H S LINGARAJ., ADVOCATE FPR R2, R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.38/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, MACT, NANJANGUD, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,44,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶27

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.06.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶29

CAV JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is filed by driver and owner against the award dated 30.08.2015 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Nanjangud in MVC No.38 of 2014.

¶31

Injured claimant met an accident on 30.06.2013 and filed claim petition claming compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- with interest. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.1,44,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from rate of petition till deposit. It was

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:36655 MFA No. 7395 of 2016

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CNR: KAHC010444362016

¶35

directed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶36

Aggrieved with the said order, the appellants preferred this appeal mainly contended that amount granted by the Tribunal under the other heads is meagre. The Tribunal erred in taking notional income of the petitioner at Rs.4,500/per month and the whole body disability at 8%. The Tribunal erred in absolving the insurance company from liability and dismissed the application against them. As on the date of accident, the policy was in force but it was not considered by the Tribunal and there was valid driving licence to the 1st appellant-driver. But the tribunal held that 1st appellant-driver has no valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle as per Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and it is not proper. It is contended that the 2nd appellant herein had not filed written statement or objection statement as he was not well versed with the court proceedings. Thus requested to set aside the order the Tribunal.

¶37

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both

sides.

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36655 MFA No. 7395 of 2016

¶42

CNR: KAHC010444362016

¶43

The manner of accident shows that on 30.06.2013, while petitioner-claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-09-EM-5895. At that time, the 1st respondent (1st appellant herein) driven goods autorikshaw bearing registration No.KA-09-A-6643 in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner-claimant. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. The petitioner was doing agricultural work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.1 before the Tribunal did not appear before and he was placed ex-parte, respondent No.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel. But respondent No.2 did not file any objection statement and only respondent No.3 filed the said statement.

¶44

Respondent No.3 argued that at the time of the accident, first respondent has no valid driving licence. Respondent No.3 examined RW1 and filed Exhibits R1 to R7 and stated that policy was in force as on the date of accident. As per Exhibit R4, respondent no.1 got valid driving licence only to drive non-transport vehicle upto 03.08.2030. Exhibit R5 is the letter sent by insurance company through RPAD and they

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:36655 MFA No. 7395 of 2016

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CNR: KAHC010444362016

¶48

requested to produce RC book and driving licence. Exhibit R6 and Exhibit R7 is the Postal Accountant and postal receipt respectively. But, respondent No.2 has not produced any relevant documents.

¶49

As per Exhibit P4, under Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act, licence was issued to the first respondent (1st appellant herein) on 04.08.2010 and it was valid till 03.08.2030 and it is valid for non-transport only. Therefore, Tribunal held that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, as the insured violated the policy conditions and directed respondent No.1 and 2-driver and owner (appellant Nos.1 and 2 herein), to pay the compensation. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs.

¶50

Oriental Insurance company Limited reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

¶51

“Definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ has to be given full effect to and it has to be read with S.10(2)(d) which makes it abundantly clear that ‘light motor vehicle’ is also a ‘transport vehicle’, gross vehicle weight or unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kgs. As specified in provision. Thus, a driver is issued

¶52

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:36655 MFA No. 7395 of 2016

¶55

CNR: KAHC010444362016

¶56

a licence as per the class of vehicle i.e. light motor vehicle, transport vehicle or omnibus or another vehicle of other categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as specified in S.2(21) of Act. Provision of Section 3 of Act requires that a person in order to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ must have authorization. Once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, gross vehicle weight or motor car, road roller or tractor, unladen weight of which, as case may be does not exceed 7500 kg. Insertion of ‘transport vehicle’ category in S.10(2) has no effect of obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles of class of light motor vehicle.”

¶57

“The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.”

¶58

Counsel of insurance company argued that, the

¶59

insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, therefore this Court finds it reasonable to fasten the liability against insurance company.

¶60

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:36655 MFA No. 7395 of 2016

¶63

CNR: KAHC010444362016

¶64

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶65

(i) Appeal is allowed.

¶66

(ii) The claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶67

(iii) Respondent-Insurance company is directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation within one month from the date of this order.

¶68

(iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on it.

¶69

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶70

CS CT:NR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2

Sri Mahadevagowda v. Sri K Veerabhadraswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahadevagowda v. Sri K Veerabhadraswamy

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

Mahesh Vs Suvarna

Sri v Manjunatha Vs Sri Naveenkumar

Sri v Manjunatha Vs Sri Arunkumar

Sri. Manju Vs D.R. Lokesh Shetty

Sri Bopaiah Subramani Ammankuttanda Vs Smt Shruthi Aiyappa K

Kum. Lekhana Priya Vs M/S Universal Textile Mills