[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Krishna S/O Rama Gouda on 2 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1368
MFA No. 102871 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102871 OF 2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
THE HULGOL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
REGISTERED OWNER OF MAHINDRA MINI PICKUP
NO.KA-31/6922, AT AND POST: BHAIRUMBE,
TQ:SIRSI(U.K.)-581 402.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KRISHNA S/O RAMA GOUDA,
AGED 30 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O: DUGGUR, TQ: HONNAVAR,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Digitally
signed by V N
BADIGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY,
Location:
VN
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
BADIGER DHARWAD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE KARWAR,
BENCH
Date:
2026.02.03
14:31:16
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
+0530
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MVC NO.1/2013
DATED 07.06.2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T.
AT HONNAVAR, AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 07.06.2014 FIXING THE LIABILITY TO PAY THE JUST
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION ON THE INSURER/RESPONDENT
NO.2 BY SETTING ASIDE THAT THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
UNDER APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1368
MFA No. 102871 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
Respondent No.1 in M.V.C.No.1/2013 on the file of the
learned Additional M.A.C.T., Honavar, has maintained this
miscellaneous first appeal questioning the judgment and award
dated 07.06.2014 therein to the extent of fixing the liability on
him to pay the compensation as determined by the Tribunal.
2. Sri Vishwanath Hegde, learned Counsel for the
Appellant has relied on decision in Mukund Dewangan Vs
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,1 and submitted that in
view of the law laid down therein, Respondent No.2 is liable to
pay the compensation amount as determined by the Tribunal
irrespective of class of vehicles.
3. Sri S.V.Yaji, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2
supported the findings recorded by the Trial Court and submitted
that the Appellant has not made out any valid ground to interfere
with the impugned judgment including the question of liability.
(2017) 14 SCC 663
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1368
HC-KAR
4. One Sri Krishna Rama Gouda, the Respondent No.1
herein, had maintained a claim petition in M.V.C.No.1/2013,
praying for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a
road traffic accident occurred on 08.04.2011 involving a
motorcycle bearing No.KA-47-J-3544 and Mahindra Maxi Cab
bearing No.KA-31-6922. It was his case that the accident in
person occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the
driver of Mahindra Maxi Cab. After contest, the Tribunal allowed
the petition in part holding that the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.33,400/- together with interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
However, the Tribunal fastened the liability of paying the
compensation only on Respondent No.1 on the ground that the
driver of the offending vehicle was not holding license to drive a
goods vehicle/transport vehicle and as such the insurer of the
said vehicle i.e., Respondent No.2 herein is not liable to
indemnify the insured.
5. In Mukund Dewangan's case referred (supra),
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clarified that the light motor
vehicle includes that transport vehicle as per weight prescribed in
Section 2(21) R/w Section 2(48) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1368
HC-KAR
that the driver holding light motor vehicle license can drive all
vehicles of class including transport vehicles and no separate
endorsement required to drive such transport vehicles.
6. As already pointed out, in the case on hand the
Tribunal absolved Respondent No.2 from its liability of
indemnifying Respondent No.1 in paying compensation to the
claimant solely on the ground that the driver of the vehicle
though was holding a license to drive light motor vehicle (non-
transport), he did not possess a license to drive a goods
vehicle/transport vehicle at the relevant point of time. The law
laid down in the above referred decision makes it clear that such
a conclusion of the Tribunal is not correct. Thereby, the
Respondent No.1 has made out valid ground to interfere with the
impugned judgment and award as prayed in the appeal.
7. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for
Appellant/Respondent No.1 has filed a memo along with a copy
of Certificate dated 06.11.2023 issued by the Assistant Registrar
of Co-Operative Societies, Sirsi Sub-Division and submitted by
the name of the Appellant/Society has been amended as Hulgol
Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society Limited, Bhairumbe in
place of its earlier name of Hulgol Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamit
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1368
HC-KAR
Bhairumbe. In view of the same, he prayed to order for
repayment of statutory deposit made in the case in the name of
Hulgol Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society Limited,
Bhairumbe than in the name of the Appellant shown in the cause
title.
8. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 07.06.2014 passed
in M.V.C.No.1/2013 by the learned Additional
M.A.C.T., Honavar is modified, holding that
Respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the owner -
Respondent No.1 therein - the insured, in paying
the compensation amount as determined by the
Tribunal.
iii) Draw modified award accordingly.
iv) The Appellant is permitted to withdraw the
statutory deposit made before this Court in view of
the modified award.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1368
HC-KAR
v) The office is directed to refund the amount to the
Appellant in its present name i.e. Hulgol Primary
Agriculture Co-Operative Society Limited,
Bhairumbe.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
SSP
CT:BCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 27
