Karnataka High Court

Mr. Mohammed Salim Ansari vs Mr. Nazeer Ahmed on 23 July, 2025

                                                    -1-
                                                                  NC: 2025:KHC:27850
                                                                MFA No. 4814 of 2017


                       HC-KAR



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                 DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                                  BEFORE

                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

                           MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4814 OF 2017 (MV-I)

                      BETWEEN:

                      MR. MOHAMMED SALIM ANSARI
                      S/O.MOHAMMED NASIM ANSARI,
                      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                      #123, NANDIDURGA ROAD,
                      NEELADRI MAHA,
                      BANGALORE-560046.
                                                                         ...APPELLANT
                      (BY MISS. SHAHIDA KHANAM J., A/W
                          SRI MASKOOR HASHMI M.D., ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    MR. NAZEER AHMED
                            S/O.ABDUL REHAMAN,
                            AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
                            R/AT #388, 5TH CROSS,
                            VINOBHA NAGAR,
BHARATHI
HM                          K.G. HALLI, BANGALORE-560048.

Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M          2.    BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Location:
HIGHCOURT OF
KARNATAKA
                            STAR BAZAAR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD                     4TH 'M' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
                            BANGALORE-560010.
                                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI K.V. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR
                          SRI MUNIYAPPA D., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
                          SRI VIJAYA PHANEENDRA T.B., ADVOCATE FOR
                          SRI A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

                           THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
                      AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.03.2017 PASSED
                      IN MVC NO.4877/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
                      CAUSES JUDGE & 24TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
                                              -2-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:27850
                                                      MFA No. 4814 of 2017


    HC-KAR



AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,20,000/- WITH INTEREST AT
9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

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

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


                                    ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 by the owner challenging

the judgment and award dated 20.03.2017 passed in MVC

No.4877/2014 by the V Additional Small Causes Judge and

XXIV ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru2.

2. The Tribunal, while partly allowing the claim

petition and awarding a total compensation of `3,20,000/-

with interest at 9% (excluding future medical expenses),

has exonerated the insurer (respondent No.2 before the

Tribunal) from payment of liability and fastened the

liability on the owner (respondent No.1 before the

Tribunal) to pay the compensation awarded, together with

accrued interest.

Hereinafter referred to as 'Act'

Hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'

NC: 2025:KHC:27850

HC-KAR

3. Learned counsel Smt. Shashida Khana M.J.

appearing for learned counsel Sri Maskoor Hashmi M.D. for

the appellant-owner contends that the finding of the

Tribunal that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the

compensation awarded since the driving licence of the

owner had expired on 14.08.2014 and renewed on

29.11.2014, while the accident took place on 05.10.2014,

is erroneous. It is contended that although the driving

licence of the driver expired on 14.08.2014, the owner had

once again applied for a licence and paid the requisite fees

on 29.09.2014 and hence, having regard to the first

proviso contained in Section 15 (1) of the Act, the insurer

is liable to pay the compensation. Reliance is further

placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court

in the case of Nagappa @ Nagaraja and others Vs.

Ravi Kupaluru and others3 in support of the contention

that since the owner of the vehicle admittedly possessed

the driving licence, even though the same had expired

MFA No.103680/2015 c/w MFA No.103681/2015 D.D. 08.02.2019

NC: 2025:KHC:27850

HC-KAR

before the date of accident, the insurer is liable to pay the

compensation awarded. Hence, she seeks for allowing the

appeal and granting the reliefs sought for.

4. Learned counsel Sri K.V. Naik for learned

counsel Sri Muniyappa .D for respondent No.1-claimant

supports the contention regarding the liability as put forth

by the owner of the vehicle.

5. Learned counsel Sri Vijaya Phaneendra T.B. for

learned counsel Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy for respondent

No.2-insurer justifies the findings recorded by the

Tribunal. However, the legal position as held in the case

of Nagappa3 is not disputed.

6. The submissions of the learned counsels have

been considered and the material on record, including the

records of the Tribunal, have been perused. The question

that arises for consideration is:

NC: 2025:KHC:27850

HC-KAR

"Whether the Tribunal was justified in exonerating the insurer from payment of compensation and fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle?"

7. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the

driving licence of the owner expired on 14.08.2014 and

was renewed on 29.11.2014.

8. It is forthcoming from Ex.R.12 that the validity

of the driving licence of respondent No.1-owner to drive

light motor vehicle (private) was between 15.10.2004 and

14.09.2014. It is further evident from the extract of the

learner's licence (Ex.R.7) that the owner paid the requisite

fee for issuance of licence on 29.09.2014 and that

learner's licence was issued on 16.10.2014. It is

contended on behalf of the owner that since the owner

shifted his place of residence from one State to another,

he was instructed to apply for a licence afresh rather than

seek for renewal of licence.

9. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Nagappa3, after considering various judgments of the

NC: 2025:KHC:27850

HC-KAR

Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering a fact situation

wherein the licence of the driver of the insured vehicle had

expired before the date of occurrence of the accident,

recorded a finding that, having regard to the fact that the

driver had possessed a driving license, he was not

disqualified from driving the insured vehicle and hence,

fastened the liability to pay the compensation awarded on

the insurer.

10. Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

the case of Shaanabasappa Vs. Anand and others4

relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant,

noticing a fact and situation wherein the driving licence of

the driver expired on 20.01.2018, and that he had made

an application for renewal on 06.09.2018 by paying the

requisite fee together with the requisite application form

and the scrutiny of the said application was made on

04.02.2019 consequent to which the endorsement of the

driving licence was made on 16.02.2019 and the printed

MFA No.100211/2021 D.D. 13.04.2022

NC: 2025:KHC:27850

HC-KAR

driving licence was issued on 18.02.2019, has recorded a

finding that the time consumed by the licencing authority

for scrutiny of the application ought not to be held against

the licence holder.

11. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel

for the appellant on the first proviso to Section 15 (1),

where under it is stipulated that if an application for

renewal of a licence was made within 30 days from the

expiry of such licence, the renewal would take effect from

the date of expiry. It is also pertinent to note that the said

period of 30 days has been increased to one year by Act

No.32 of 2019 with effect from 01.09.2019.

12. In view of the settled proposition of law as held

by the Division Bench of this Court in Nagappa3, as also

the judgment of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in

Shaanabasappa4 as noticed above, as well as the

stipulation contained in the first proviso to Section 15(1)

of the Act, the finding of the Tribunal holding that the

NC: 2025:KHC:27850

HC-KAR

driver of the vehicle did not possess an effective driving

licence as on the date of the accident and exonerating the

insurer from payment of compensation is erroneous.

Accordingly, it is required to be held that the insurer is

liable to pay the compensation awarded together with

accrued interest. Hence, the question framed for

consideration is answered in the negative.

13. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant

submits that no enhancement of compensation has been

sought and that the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Tribunal is just and proper.

14. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i. The above appeal is allowed;

ii. The judgment and award dated 20.03.2017

passed in MVC No.4877/2014 by the V Additional

Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Member,

MACT, Bengaluru is modified to the extent of

holding that the compensation together with

NC: 2025:KHC:27850

HC-KAR

accrued interest awarded by the Tribunal shall be

deposited by the insurer (respondent No.2 herein/

respondent No.2 before the Tribunal). In all other

respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal

remains unaltered;