Karnataka High Court

The Branch Manager vs Sangawwa W/O Danappa Gundali on 10 November, 2025

                                                      -1-
                                                                   NC: 2025:KHC-D:15331
                                                                MFA No. 100954 of 2014


                           HC-KAR




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

                           DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                               BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100954 OF 2014 (MV-I)

                          BETWEEN:

                          THE BRANCH MANAGER
                          NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                          MELLIGERI COMPLEX, BAGALKOT,
                          REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER,
                          NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                          REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
                          ARIHANT PLAZA, KESUGAL ROAD,
                          KESHWAPUR HUBLI.
                                                                             ...APPELLANT
                          (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

                          AND:

                          1.   SANGAWWA W/O. DANAPPA GUNDALI
                               AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                               R/O: MUDENUR,
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
                               TALUK: RAMDURGA, DIST: BELGAUM.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD                   2.   BHIMAPPA LAKKAPPA SINGADI
BENCH
Date: 2025.11.15
10:24:52 +0530                 AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: EX-ARMY,
                               R/O: MUDENUR,
                               TALUK: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM.
                                                                          ...RESPONDENTS
                          (R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

                               THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING
                          THAT, THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:12.12.2013, PASSED IN
                          MVC.NO.516/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-II,
                          BAGALKOT, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND GRANT
                          SUCH OTHER OR FUTEHR RELIEF'S AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO
                          GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE
                          INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:15331
                                       MFA No. 100954 of 2014


HC-KAR




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

                       ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

This appeal is filed by the insurance company under

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the

judgment and award, dated 12.12.2013 passed in M.V.C.

No.516/2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II,

Bagalkot hereinafter referred to as ('the Tribunal')

challenging the liability of the insurer.

2. Parties would be referred with their rank, as they

were before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience and

clarity.

3. In MVC No.516/2012, compensation was claimed

in respect of the accident that has taken place on

25.04.2012 when the claimant was proceeding in 407

passenger vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22/A-5332

from Yaragatti to Shivapur village at Yaragatti-Gokak PWD

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15331

HC-KAR

road at about 23.30 hours and sustained fracture and other

injuries.

4. On service of notice, respondent No.1-owner of

407 passenger vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA.22-A.5332

appeared through his counsel and filed his objection

statement, wherein he denied the petition averments in toto

and further contended that his vehicle was duly insured with

respondent No.2 and thus, prayed for dismissal of the

petition.

5. On service of notice, respondent No.2-Insurance

Company has denied all the averments in toto, except

admitting the validity of insurance to the offending vehicle

and further taken defence that there was no valid driving

licence to the driver of the vehicle as on the date of

accident to drive 407 passenger vehicle. Hence, there was

violation of provision of M.V. Act. Hence, prayed for

dismissal of the claim petitions.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15331

HC-KAR

6. After recording evidence of both sides and

hearing arguments of both sides, in this case and in other

two cases arising out of same accident, the Tribunal has

passed the common judgment awarding compensation of

Rs.16,000/- to the claimant by the Tribunal. In this

common judgment, there was a finding that the driver of

the vehicle was having licence as on the date of accident

and thus saddled liability on the insurer in all the three

cases.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/insurer has

preferred this appeal.

8. Respondents have not appeared even after

service of notice.

9. Learned counsel Sri M.K. Soudagr for appellant

would submit that the liability saddled on the appellant by

the Tribunal is not proper, as there was no valid license to

the driver as on the date of accident and it was suspended

in that particular period. However, the Tribunal has not

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15331

HC-KAR

assessed in proper manner and allowed the claim petition

and hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.

10. Having heard the learned counsel Sri M.K.

Soudagr for the appellant and perusal of records, the only

point that would arise for consideration is, whether the

saddling liability on the insurer by the Tribunal is proper??

11. Answer to the above point would be in the

"affirmative" for the following reasons:

12. The insurer has taken contention at the time of

cross-examination of witnesses and at the time of leading

evidence that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid

driving licence and his licence was suspended as on the

date of the.

13. It is a fact that the driver was driving 407 Tata

motor vehicle and its weight was only 5300 Kgs. as per the

admission of R.W.1 and as per the RC book of the vehicle.

Admittedly, the driver of the 407 vehicle was having valid

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15331

HC-KAR

DL to run LMV, which includes 407 vehicle, as its weight

was only 5,300 KGs.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund

Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in

2017 ACJ 2011, has clarified this point that the person

who was having licnece to drive LMV is also having capacity

to drive the light motor transport vehicle provided its weight

shall be less than 7500 kgs. and does not exclude transport

vehicle. It reads as follows:

"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 2 (21) read with sections 2 (15) and 2 (48) Light motor vehicle- Whether a 'light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2 (21) would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2 (21) read with sections 2 (15) and 2 (48)-Held: yes; such transport vehicles are not excluded by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994.

[Para 46 (1)]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 10 (2) (e)-Transport vehicle-Whether expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section 10 (2) (e) by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 relates to medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle as per section 10 (2) (e) to (h) [prior to amendment of 1994] of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Held: yes; it does not exclude transport vehicle from purview of section 10 (2) (d) and section 2 (21) of the Act.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15331

HC-KAR

[Para 46 (iii)]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 3 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 rule 14(1) read with Form 4- Driving licence-Light motor vehicle Insertion of expression 'transport vehicle' in Form 4 w.e.f. 28.3.2001 relates only to medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle which were substituted as transport vehicle in 1994-Whether procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of light motor vehicle continues to be the same and has not been changed-Held: yes; driver holding licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive transport vehicle of that class without any endorsement to that effect.

[Para 46 (iv)]

Interpretation of statutes-While interpreting a legislative provision, intention of the legislature, motive and philosophy of the relevant provisions, goals to be achieved by enacting the same, have to be taken into consideration-Interpretation which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual is the best-Correct interpretation is one that best harmonises the words with object of the statute-Court cannot supply casus omissus."

(Paras 24, 26, 29)

15. Relying on the above said judgment, the licence

holding by the driver was LMV and he was having valid

licence to drive the vehicle having laden weight of 7500

kgs. or less than that. In the instant case, the driver was

holding licenne to drive the Tata 407 passenger vehicle

weight of which was only 5300 Kgs. which comes within

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15331

HC-KAR

7500 kgs. In this regard, the DL produced by the driver is

also relevant to note that he was having valid driving

licence from 20.01.1998 till 19.01.2018 i.e. as on the date