Karnataka High Court
Savita Hegde W/O Deceased Dr. ... vs Gajanan S/O Shivaram Naik on 22 September, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12825-DB
MFA No. 102252 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
M.F.A NO. 102252 OF 2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SAVITA HEGDE
W/O. DECEASED DR. VISHWANATH
SHIVARAM HEGDE,
AGE: 50 YRS, OCC: H/W.,
R/O. MAROLEKERI HADINBAL,
POST: HADINBAL,
TAL: HONNAVAR-581334,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High 2. POORVI HEGDE
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench D/O. DECEASED DR. VISHWANATH
SHIVARAM HEGDE,
AGE: 24 YRS, OCC: H/W.,
R/O. MAROLEKERI HADINBAL,
POST: HADINBAL,
TAL: HONNAVAR-581334,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BANGALORE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12825-DB
MFA No. 102252 of 2016
HC-KAR
AND:
1. GAJANAN S/O. SHIVARAM NAIK,
REGISTERED OWNER OF BOLERO MAXI TRUCK
BSIII REGISTRATION NO.KA-47/5673,
R/O. HERVALI, POST: CHIKKANKOD,
TQ: HONNAVAR-581334,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DIVISIONAL UDUPI DIVISION UDUPI,
DIST: UDUPI, KARNATAKA-576101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. P. KANDAGAL, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.08.2015 PASSED IN M.V.C.
NO.137/2014 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT HONAVAR ITINERARY COURT
AT BHATKAL IN SO FAR AS DENYING THE COMPENSATION IN
EXCESS OF RS. 29,10,000/- AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL TO MEET THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12825-DB
MFA No. 102252 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the
judgment and award dated 19.08.2015 passed in MVC
No.137/2014 by the Additional MACT, Honavar (Itinerary Court
at Bhatkal (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Heard Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants submits that this appeal is filed by
the claimants challenging the judgment and award of the
Tribunal only on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in
saddling the liability to pay compensation on the respondent
No.1 -owner of the vehicle on the ground that the driver of the
vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license to
drive a LMV Goods vehicle. The said issue is no more
res-integra. It is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s
Oriental Insurance Company Limited1, which is affirmed by
the larger Bench in the case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General
(2017) 14 SCC 663
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12825-DB
HC-KAR
Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Rambha Devi and Others.2 Hence,
he seeks to allow the appeal by shifting the liability on the
insurer of the vehicle and directing to pay the compensation.
3. Per contra, Sri.Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 supports the order of the Tribunal
and seeks to dismiss the appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents and
meticulously perused the material available on record.
5. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and
awarded compensation to the appellant. However, the
respondent-owner of the vehicle was directed to pay the
compensation on the ground that the driver of the vehicle
involved in the accident was not having valid and effective
driving license to drive LMV Goods vehicle. The finding of the
Tribunal at paragraph No.22 is extracted herein below:
"22. In the present case there is clear evidence to
show that the vehicle involved in the accident is a light
goods vehicle and the driver of the said vehicle at that
Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018 dated 06.11.2024
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12825-DB
HC-KAR
time was having driving license to drive light motor
vehicle and motor cycle with gear, he has obtained the
driving license to drive the light motor vehicle -goods
vehicle with effect from 10.10.2014. It is also clear that
the driver was issued driving license on 09.03.2009 which
is after the amendment to Central Motor Vehicle Rules
dated 28.03.2001. Under such circumstances it cannot
be said that respondent No.1 was having valid and
effective driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of
the accident. Accordingly I answer issue No.2 in the
negative."
6. We have perused the Ex.R4-Copy of 'B' Register
Extract of the vehicle involved in the accident. The vehicle
involved in the accident is KA-47/5673. The LMV Goods Vehicle,
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., the laden weight of the said
vehicle is 1450 kgs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mukund Dewangan referred supra and in the case of M/s
Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. referred supra
considered the said issue, and in the case of M/s Bajaj
Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. referred supra at
paragraph No.131 held as under:
"131. Our conclusions following the above
discussion are as under:-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12825-DB
HC-KAR
(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle
(LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with
a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted
to operate a 'Transport Vehicle' without needing
additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the
MV Act specifically for the 'Transport Vehicle' class.
For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles
are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists
between the two. The special eligibility requirements
will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts,
e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which
emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to
drive a 'Transport Vehicle,' does not supersede the
definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV
Act.
(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in
the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving
'transport vehicles' would apply only to those
intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight
exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. 'medium goods vehicle',
'medium passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle' and
'heavy passenger vehicle'.
(IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is
upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this
judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission,
the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain
provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not
considered in the said judgment."
7. In view of the enunciation of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case on hand, the vehicle
involved in the accident is less than laden weight of 7,500
kilogram. Hence the aforesaid judgment is applicable to the
case on hand. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12825-DB
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is set aside insofar as saddling of the
liability and direction to pay the compensation
to the respondent No.1 is concerned by further
directing the respondent No.2-Insurance
Company to pay the compensation as ordered
by the Tribunal.
iii. Registry to transmit the records to the Tribunal
forthwith.
iv. No orders as to costs.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
RKM /CT-AN
