[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Siddayya S/O Kallayya Malimath on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4508
MFA No. 102555 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102555 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
JOSHI BUILDING, STATION ROAD, HUBLI.
REPRESENTED THROUGH
ITS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
TP HUB HUBLI, BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SIDDAYYA S/O KALLAYYA MALIMATH,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. SMT. SAVITA W/O SIDDAYYA MULIMATH,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
BOTH ARE R/O: GURUVINAHALLI VILLAGE,
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.25 09:36:46
3. NAGAPPA T. INGALAGI,
+0000
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GURUVINAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.
(OWNER OF THE TRACTOR-TRAILER
BEARING NO.KA-MYE-2031)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MOHAN A. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4508
MFA No. 102555 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.04.2014,
PASSED IN MVC.NO.49/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT.,
HUBLI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,80,000/- WITH
THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION & ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 19.04.2014 passed
by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hubballi1
in MVC no.49/2010, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri NR Kupelur, learned counsel for appellant submitted
that appeal was by Insurer challenging finding in impugned
award on liability only. It was submitted that there was no
dispute about occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle
namely Tractor bearing no.MYE-2031 in which Ishwarayya aged
2 years, died on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor
by its driver. The only ground urged by appellant-insurer was
that as on date of accident, driver of tractor had driving license
For short, 'Tribunal'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4508
HC-KAR
to drive tractor only. But accident occurred, when tractor was
attached with trailer. Though, said ground was urged, Tribunal
did not consider same in a proper perspective, and passed award
against insurer. Therefore, prayed for allowing appeal and
setting aside finding on liability.
3. Sri Chetan T. Limbikai, learned counsel for respondents
no.1 and 2 and Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for
respondent no.3 are opposed appeal.
4. On other hand, relying upon decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Surekha w/o. Rajendra Nakhate
and Others v. Santosh s/o.Namdeo Jadhav and Others,
reported in (2021) 16 SCC 467, and learned counsel for
claimants sought to contend that compensation awarded being
inadequate, could be enhanced even in insurer's appeal without
claimants filing cross appeal.
5. Heard learned counsels, perused impugned judgment,
award and record.
6. From above, since insurer is in appeal, point that would
arise for consideration is,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4508
HC-KAR
"Whether finding of Tribunal on liability calls
for interference?"
7. At outset, it is seen that accident occurred on
06.02.2010 and copies of Ex.R5 Driving License and Ex.R6
history sheet of Driving License, made available for perusal
would indicate that driving licence was issued prior to
amendment of 2001 and therefore, as per decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited, reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668,
driving license would authorize driver to drive any vehicle with
gross vehicle weight upto 7500 kgs., which would cover vehicle
in question. Therefore, point for consideration answered in
negative.
8. Insofar as submission of learned counsel for
respondent/ claimants for enhancement, perusal of decision
relied upon would indicate that in an appeal by insurer on
quantum, High Court had quantified compensation and found
compensation entitled to was more than award and dismissed
insurers appeal. Under such circumstances, Hon'ble Apex Court
hold once assessed, claimant would be entitled for just
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4508
HC-KAR
compensation. But instant appeal by insurer is on liability and
there is no challenge either by insurer or by claimants on
quantum. Therefore, decision relied would not be of assistance to
claimants.
In view of above finding, appeal is dismissed.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to Tribunal
for disbursal.
Balance amount to be deposited within 6 weeks.
On deposit, Tribunal is directed to release entire amount
infavour of claimants.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SMM-para 1 and 2
CKK-para 3 to till end
CT:VP/ LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9
