Karnataka High Court
Sanna Durugappa S/O Hulugappa vs M B Sunil Kumar S/O Balakrishna on 12 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898
MFA No. 22240 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22240 OF 2013 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
SANNA DURUGAPPA S/O. HULUGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 17 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN HULUGAPPA S/O. KONDAIAH, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: MAGIMAVINAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: H.B.HALLI, DIST: BELLARY.
...APPELLANT
(BY KUM. RESHMA MADIVAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M B SUNIL KUMAR S/O. BALAKRISHNA,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF
LORRY BEARING NO. KA-01/AB-930
R/O: POGINUTTI ROAD, 4TH CROSS
BESIDES JANI FLOOR MILL, CHITRADURGA.
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR 2. S MOHANRAJ S/O. NOT KNOWN,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:OWNER OF LORRY,
BEARING NO. KA-01/AB-930,
Digitally signed
R/O: MADAKARIPURA, CHALLAKERE
by
MOHANKUMAR
ROAD, CHITRADURGA.
B SHELAR
Date:
2025.09.17
15:46:06 +0530
3. THE MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
INSURED AT VIJAYASHREE,
OPP. NANJUNDESWARA PETROL BUNK
DAVANAGERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA,
HAVING IT S BRANCH OFFICE,
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.
LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, STATION ROAD, HOSPET.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.YAJI, ADV. FOR R3; R1 AND R2 ARE SERAVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898
MFA No. 22240 of 2013
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF M.V. ACT., PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS IN MVC NO.154/2011 OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT HOSPET CUM MACT-IV AT HOSPET DATED
12.08.2011 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND AWARD THE
COMPENSATION OF RS. 20,000/-EXCEPT THE COMPENSATION
AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act,' for
short) by the appellant-claimant, challenging the judgment
and award dated 12.08.2011 passed in MVC No.154/2011
by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet
cum MACT-IV, Hospet.
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this
appeal, are as follows:
3. On 24.12.2007, the petitioner and others were
proceeding on a bus bearing Reg.No.KA-25/F-901 from
Raral Thanda to Hospet on NH-13. Near Gollarhalli, the
driver of a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01/AB-930 came from
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898
HC-KAR
the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, and
collided with the bus. Due to the said impact, the petitioner
and others sustained grievous injuries. Thus, the petitioner
and others filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the
M.V.Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by
them in a road traffic accident.
4. Respondent No.1- the driver and Respondent
No.3-the Insurance Company, appeared before the
Tribunal. Despite service of notice, respondent No.2-the
owner remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte.
Respondent No.1 filed a statement of objections denying
the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended
that respondent No.1 was possessing a valid and effective
driving license as of the date of the accident, and the policy
was in force. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition
against respondent No.1.
5. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed a
statement of objections denying the averments made in the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898
HC-KAR
claim petition. It is contended that the claim petition is not
maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is
contended that the drivers of the lorry in question and the
bus, both were not having the valid and effective driving
license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to
dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3-
Insurance Company.
6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the
parties, clubbed all the claim petitions, and framed the
common issues and additional issues.
7. The petitioners, to substantiate their case,
examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 5, and marked 10
documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the
respondents did not lead any oral evidence, however,
marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The Tribunal, after
assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed
the claim petition in part, and awarded global compensation
of Rs.5,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898
HC-KAR
date of the petition till realization, held that the owner and
the driver of the lorry in question are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and
directed the owner of the lorry in question to deposit the
compensation amount. The claim petitions against the
Insurance Company were dismissed.
8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation and liability passed in MVC No.154/2011,
filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid
and effective license to drive LMV transport, as of the date
of the accident. She submits that the said issue is covered
by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
MUKUND DEWANGAN VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668. The said aspect
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898
HC-KAR
was not considered by the Tribunal, and committed an error
in dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance
Company. She also submits that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these
grounds, she prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle
did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of
the date of the accident, and there is a breach of policy
conditions. He submits that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any
interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perused the records, and considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The points, that would arise for consideration are
regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898
HC-KAR
14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of
the accident, and the injuries sustained by the petitioner. To
prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the
petitioner has produced the charge sheet, which discloses
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Reg. Liability:
15. The Insurance Company has taken a specific
defense that the driver of the offending vehicle did not
possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date
of the accident. He possessed LMV transport license and the
driver cannot drive heavy goods vehicle. The said issue was
covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of MUKUND DEWANGAN (SUPRA). The Hon'ble Apex
Court held that a person possessing a license to drive LMV
is competent to drive heavy goods transportation vehicle,
and no endorsement is required to drive the same. This
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898
HC-KAR
judgment was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of JAGADISH KUMAR SOOD VS UNITED INDIAN
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. and Others reported in AIR
2018 SC 2096. Thus, the Tribunal has committed an error
in dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance
Company. Admittedly, as of the date of the accident, the
policy was valid. In view of the above discussion, the
Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
Reg. Quantum of compensation:
16. The petitioner was examined in 'P' series. The
petitioner has suffered permanent disability. To prove the
permanent disability, the petitioner has not examined the
doctor. From the perusal of the wound certificate produced
by the petitioner, it discloses that the petitioner has
suffered simple injuries. The Tribunal considering the
injuries suffered by the petitioner has awarded a global
compensation of Rs.5,000/-, however, it is on the lower
side.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898
HC-KAR
17. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained
by the petitioner, this court is of the opinion that the
petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of
Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the
date of the petition till realization and the respondents are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.
18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and the award
dated 12.08.2011 passed in MVC
No.154/2011 by the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet cum
MACT-IV, Hospet is modified.
(iii) The petitioner is entitled to a global
compensation of Rs.20,000/- as against
Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11898
HC-KAR
interest at 6% per annum from the date
of petition till realisation of the amount.
(iv) However, the petitioner is not entitled for
the interest for the delayed period of 547
days in filing the appeal.
(v) The respondents are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation.
(vi) The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation with
accrued interest within 8 weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(vii) The Tribunal records, and the amount in
deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
MBS
CT:ANB
