Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 17827
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
C.M. POONACHA, J
MR. MOHAMMED SALIM ANSARI – Appellant
Versus
MR. NAZEER AHMED – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4814 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MISS. SHAHIDA KHANAM J., SRI MASKOOR HASHMI M.D.
For the Respondents: SRI K.V. NAIK, SRI MUNIYAPPA D., SRI VIJAYA PHANEENDRA T.B., SRI A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY
An expired driving license does not absolve the insurer’s liability if the owner applied for renewal prior to the accident.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Appeal against exoneration of insurer from liability to pay compensation - Tribunal found owner liable due to expired driving licence - Established that owner had applied for renewal before the accident, thus insurer must compensate - Relevant judgments considered include Nagappa @ Nagaraja and Shaanabasappa that clarify assumptions around expired licenses. (Paras 3-12)
(B) Appeal - Court's duty to verify legality of Tribunal’s findings rather than substitute its own views. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
This appeal arises from an award by the Tribunal granting Rs.3,20,000/- to a claimant while exonerating the insurer due to the owner's expired driving license at the time of an accident. The owner had applied for license renewal shortly before the accident.
Findings of Court:
The finding of the Tribunal regarding the owner’s liability was based on a misunderstanding of renewal provisions and license validity, necessitating modification of the award to hold insurer liable.
Issues: The central question was whether the Tribunal correctly exonerated the insurer based on the owner's driving license status at the time of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that an expired license does not disqualify an owner from claiming insurer liability when renewal procedures were observed properly. The insurer must be held responsible for compensation.
Result: Appeal allowed; insurer directed to pay compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. owner's liability due to expired driving license. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. insurer's obligation in case of owner's application for license renewal. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's decision modifies liability ruling based on renewal consideration. (Para 12) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 by the owner challenging the judgment and award dated 20.03.2017 passed in MVC No.4877/2014 by the V Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’]
2. The Tribunal, while partly allowing the claim petition and awarding a total compensation of `3,20,000/- with interest at 9% (excluding future medical expenses), has exonerated the insurer (respondent No.2 before the Tribunal) from payment of liability and fastened the liability on the owner (respondent No.1 before the Tribunal) to pay the compensation awarded, together with accrued interest.
Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’
3. Learned counsel Smt. Shashida Khana M.J.
appearing for learned counsel Sri Maskoor Hashmi M.D. for the appellant-owner contends that the finding of the Tribunal that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation awarded since the driving licence of the owner had expired on 14.08.2014 and renewed on 29.11.2014, while the accident took place on 05.10.2014, is erroneous. It is contended that although the driving licence of the driver expired on 14.08.2014, the owner had once again applied for a licence and paid the requisite fees on 29.09.2014 and hence, having regard to the first proviso contained in Section 15 (1) of the Act, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. Reliance is further placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nagappa @ Nagaraja and others Vs. Ravi Kupaluru and others , [MFA No.103680/2015 c/w MFA No.103681/2015 D.D. 08.02.2019] in support of the contention that since the owner of the vehicle admittedly possessed the driving licence, even though the same had expired before the date of accident, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation awarded. Hence, she seeks for allowing the appeal and granting the reliefs sought for.
4. Learned counsel Sri K.V. Naik for learned counsel Sri Muniyappa .D for respondent No.1-claimant supports the contention regarding the liability as put forth by the owner of the vehicle.
5. Learned counsel Sri Vijaya Phaneendra T.B. for learned counsel Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy for respondent No.2-insurer justifies the findings recorded by the Tribunal. However, the legal position as held in the case of Nagappa3 is not disputed.
6. The submissions of the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record, including the records of the Tribunal, have been perused. The question that arises for consideration is:
“Whether the Tribunal was justified in exonerating the insurer from payment of compensation and fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle?”
7. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the driving licence of the owner expired on 14.08.2014 and was renewed on 29.11.2014.
8. It is forthcoming from Ex.R.12 that the validity of the driving licence of respondent No.1-owner to drive light motor vehicle (private) was between 15.10.2004 and 14.09.2014. It is further evident from the extract of the learner’s licence (Ex.R.7) that the owner paid the requisite fee for issuance of licence on 29.09.2014 and that learner’s licence was issued on 16.10.2014. It is contended on behalf of the owner that since the owner shifted his place of residence from one State to another, he was instructed to apply for a licence afresh rather than seek for renewal of licence.
9. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nagappa3, after considering various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering a fact situation wherein the licence of the driver of the insured vehicle had expired before the date of occurrence of the accident, recorded a finding that, having re
