[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sr. Regional Manager, National ... vs Devappa S/O Ekappa Parangi on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5001
MFA No. 100433 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100433 OF 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SR. REGIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR,
ARIHANT BUILDING, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI.
NOW REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KARTHIK GANACHARI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEVAPPA S/O EKAPPA PARANGI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O:TIMMARAGUDDI, TQ: YALABURGA,
NOW AT UNACHAGERI, TQ: RON.
2. M/S. M.S. NAGAPUR CRANE SERVICE
PROPRIETOR, SHAMSHAR SINGH KRUPAL SINGH,
FLAT NO.206, RAJESHWARI APARTMENT,
NEAR CONVENT SCHOOL,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
OPP: HALLIKERI NARASING HOME,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI. DIST: DHARWAD-580 023.
CHANDRASHEKAR KATTIMANI
LAXMAN Location: High
KATTIMANI Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.04
06:58:05 +0100
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GS HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SANTOSH D. NARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
28.11.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.09/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, RON, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.12,78,808/-
ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5001
MFA No. 100433 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 28.11.2014 passed
by Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Ron ('Tribunal' for
short) in MVC no.9/2013, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Karthik Ganachari, advocate appearing for Sri
Suresh S.Gundi, learned counsel for appellant submitted that
appeal was by insurer challenging finding of Tribunal on liability
as well as on quantum. It was submitted, as per claimant on
24.12.2011 while claimant was walking on Gajendragad -
Kushtagi road at 2:15 p.m., driver of crane no.KA-25/P-8425
drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against
claimant. Due to same, claimant sustained grievous injuries and
despite treatment, did not recover fully. Alleging loss of earning
capacity, he filed claim petition against owner and insurer of
crane.
3. On contest wherein claim petition was opposed on all
grounds including that driver of crane had no valid and effective
driving licence as on date of accident and there was breach of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5001
HC-KAR
terms and conditions of policy, Tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence.
4. Claimant examined himself along with
Dr.Gavisiddappa Palled as PWs1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits
P1 to P17. Insurer examined its official as RW1 and got marked
Exhibits R1 to R3. On consideration, Tribunal held accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crane by its driver
and claimant was entitled for total compensation of ₹12,78,808/-
with interest at 6% per annum from insurer. Aggrieved, appeal
was filed.
5. Insofar as liability, it was submitted, to substantiate
actionable negligence, claimant not only relied upon prosecution
records but also treatment records. Ex.P9 - discharge summary
issued by SDM Hospital, Dharwad, indicated date of admission as
01.09.2011 and date of discharge as 14.09.2011 and in history
of injuries, it was stated, RTA 3 days ago as fall from tractor. It
was submitted, said date of admission and discharge would
predate date of accident by two months, thereby establishing
foisting of false claim against insurer. It was further submitted,
vehicle in question was farm equipment and Ex.R3 - driving
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5001
HC-KAR
licence of driver of crane showed, he had driving licence to drive
LMV, LMVGV and transport vehicle from 02.02.2002 valid till
02.12.2016 in case of transport vehicle and till 14.06.2031 in
case of non-transport vehicle. This would establish that as on
date of accident, driver did not have valid and effective driving
licence to drive a crane and therefore, Tribunal was not justified
in holding insurer liable to pay compensation.
6. On quantum, it was submitted that assessment of
monthly income of deceased at ₹6,000/- was excessive and as
such compensation awarded called for reduction. On said ground
sought for allowing of appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,
award and record.
8. There is no representation for respondents.
9. From above and since insurer is in appeal challenging
finding of Tribunal on negligence/liability, points that arise for
consideration are:
1. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding
insurer liable to pay compensation? And
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5001
HC-KAR
2. Whether assessment of compensation calls for
modification?
10. Point no.1: Challenge is two-fold. Firstly, that Ex.P9
sought to be relied upon by claimant indicated that claimant had
met with an accident two months prior to accident in question,
but failed to disclose same in his pleadings, thereby indicating
that claim petition was filed with intention to fix insured vehicle
for purposes of claim. Second ground urged is about driver of
crane not possessing valid and effective driving licence at time of
accident. Though perusal of Ex.P9 would indicate that date of
admission and date of discharge in month of September 2011 as
being more than two months prior to accident in question,
remaining part of Ex.P9 does contain admission of claimant on
account of injuries sustained in RTA that occurred on
24.12.2011. Apart from above, there is absolutely no cross-
examination of claimant on this aspect especially when it was
possible for claimant to have sustained another accident earlier
and took treatment for same..
11. Second ground is about driving licence. Perusal of
Ex.R3 would indicate, driver having driving licence not only in
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5001
HC-KAR
respect of Light Motor Vehicle, but also Light Motor Vehicle with
Goods Vehicle and Transport vehicle endorsements. Accident
occurred, while crane was moving on road, in which case it
would require to be treated as regular motor vehicle. Since driver
possesses driving licence not only in respect of Light Motor
Vehicle Goods Vehicle, but also transport vehicle, in absence of
establishing that driver of a crane would require separate and
specific licence, contention of insurer cannot be accepted. For
aforesaid reason, Point no.1 is answered in 'affirmative'.
12. Point no.2: On quantum, challenge is confined to
Tribunal taking higher monthly income. While passing impugned
award, it is seen that Tribunal considered notional income for
year 2011 as ₹6,000/-. Even as per notional income chart
adopted for settlement of cases before Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority (KSLSA), notional income for year 2011 is
₹6,000/-. Thus, there would be sufficient justification for Tribunal
to have assessed monthly income at ₹6,000/-. Therefore, Point
no.2 is answered in 'negative'. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5001
HC-KAR
ii. Amount in deposit, if any is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal for payment.
iii. Balance to be deposited within six weeks.
iv. On deposit, Tribunal is directed to release
compensation amount in favour of claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30
