[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mahantesh S/O Basappa Katti vs Dharmanna S/O Hanamappa Naikar on 16 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4103
MFA No. 102376 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102376 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MAHANTESH S/O BASAPPA KATTI,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING NO.KA-29/T-8139/T-8140,
R/O. KERUR VILLAGE, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PN HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DHARAMANNA S/O HANAMAPPA NAIKAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK,
R/O. BELAGANTI VILLAGE,
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
MELLIGERI COMPLEX, BAGALKOT.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CV ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.17 09:55:53
+0000
R1- SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF
MEMBER M.A.C.T.-IV BAGALKOT IN MVC NO.295/2012 DATED
23.12.2013 AND DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION OF THE
RESPONDENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4103
MFA No. 102376 of 2014
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 23.12.2013 passed
in MVC.no.295/2012 by Member, MACT, Bagalkot (for short,
'Tribunal'), this appeal is filed.
2. Sri PN Hosamane, learned counsel for appellant
submits that appeal was by owner of vehicle in MVC
no.295/2012 filed by respondent no.1 - claimant herein, alleging
that on 23.12.2011 when he was standing by side of Narenur
Cross, driver of tractor-trailer bearing no.KA-29/T-8139/T-8140
drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against
claimant causing accident. In said accident, claimant sustained
grievous injuries and despite treatment at Dr.Kerudi Hospital,
Bagalkot, did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning
capacity. Therefore, claim petition was filed under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against owner and insurer.
3. On contest wherein claim petition was opposed on all
counts, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant
examined himself as PW-1 and Dr.V.R.Kanthi as PW-2 and got
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4103
HC-KAR
marked Exhibits P1 to P8. Respondent examined its official as
RW1 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held claimant entitled for
compensation of ₹1,78,246/- with 6% interest. However on
ground that claimant failed to establish driver did not have valid
driving licence to drive tractor trailer though he had driving
licence to drive tractor only, Tribunal dismissed claim petition
against insurer. Aggrieved, present appeal is filed.
5. It was submitted that while passing impugned award,
Tribunal relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Natwar Parikh & Co.Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.,
reported in (2005) 7 SCC 364 which was dealing with
classification of vehicles for purposes of taxation. It was
submitted, there was no dispute about driver of tractor holding
valid driving license to drive tractor and though trailer was
attached, trailer being empty, there was virtually no basis for
contending that tractor-trailer would constitute a goods carriage
requiring separate licence. Therefore, submitted dismissal of
claim petition against insurer was on a total erroneous premise
and sought for allowing appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4103
HC-KAR
6. On other hand, Sri CV Angadi, learned counsel for
respondent - insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted that
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natwar Parikh's case had examined
very issue about classification of tractor attached with trailer and
held same to be a goods carriage. Therefore, Tribunal was
justified in holding that driver did not have valid licence to drive
goods carriage and rightly dismissed claim petition.
7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment
and award.
8. From above and since only owner of vehicle is in
appeal challenging denial of indemnity from insurer, point that
would arise for consideration is:
'Whether Tribunal was justified in dismissing claim
petition against insurer?'
9. Same is answered 'partly in negative' for following
reasons.
10. There is no dispute about driver of insured vehicle
possessing driving licence to drive tractor. There is also no
dispute about fact that at time of causation of accident, a trailer
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4103
HC-KAR
was attached to tractor. Attachment of a trailer for carrying of
goods would render tractor-trailer combination 'a goods vehicle'.
However, since driver was possessing driving licence to drive
tractor and claimant injured claimant is a third party, as held by
Full Bench decision of this Court in case of New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., Bijapur vs. Yallavva w/o. Yamanappa
Dharanakeri, reported in 2020 (2) AKR 484, insurer would
first require to answer claims of third parties and thereafter
proceed against insured even if there were infraction of terms
and conditions of policy. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Impugned judgment and award passed in
MVC no.295/2012 by Tribunal is modified.
iii. Dismissal of claim petition against insurer is
set aside.
iv. Insurer is held liable to pay compensation to
claimants in first instance and thereafter
would be at liberty to recover same from
insured without recourse to separate
proceedings.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4103
HC-KAR
v. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14
