Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24565
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, JJ
SAVITA HEGDE W/O. DECEASED DR. VISHWANATH SHIVARAM HEGDE – Appellant
Versus
GAJANAN S/O. SHIVARAM NAIK – Respondent
M.F.A NO. 102252 OF 2016 (MV-D)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SHIVARAJ BALLOLI
For the Respondents: SRI. S. P. KANDAGAL, SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI
The appeal clarifies driver licensing requirements for light motor vehicles and adjusts liability based on established Supreme Court precedents.
Headnote:This judgment pertains to an appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act challenging a tribunal’s award. The court considered the validity of the driver's license and established liability concerning the insurance company based on precedent set in notable Supreme Court cases. The main legal issues included the interpretation of licensing laws for light motor vehicles as per the M.V. Act. The appeal was partially granted, adjusting the liability for compensation accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal is brought by claimants related to a tribunal's award. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by proponents and opponents of the appeal. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's examination of vehicle license validity and evidence. (Para 5) |
| 4. application of prior case law and driving license regulations. (Para 7) |
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 19.08.2015 passed in MVC No.137/2014 by the Additional MACT, Honavar (Itinerary Court at Bhatkal (for short, ‘Tribunal’).
2. Heard Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that this appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award of the Tribunal only on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in saddling the liability to pay compensation on the respondent No.1 -owner of the vehicle on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive a LMV Goods vehicle. The said issue is no more res-integra. It is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofMukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited 1, which is affirmed by the larger Bench in the case ofM/s Bajaj Alliance General (2017) 14 SCC 663 Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Rambha Devi and Others. , [ Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018 dated 06.11.2024] Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by shifting the liability on the insurer of the vehicle and directing to pay the compensation.
3. Per contra, Sri.Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the order of the Tribunal and seeks to dismiss the appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record.
5. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation to the appellant. However, the respondent-owner of the vehicle was directed to pay the compensation on the ground that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not having valid and effective driving license to drive LMV Goods vehicle. The finding of the Tribunal at paragraph No.22 is extracted herein below:
“22. In the present case there is clear evidence to show that the vehicle involved in the accident is a light goods vehicle and the driver of the said vehicle at that time was having driving license to drive light motor vehicle and motor cycle with gear, he has obtained the driving license to drive the light motor vehicle –goods vehicle with effect from 10.10.2014. It is also clear that the driver was issued driving license on 09.03.2009 which is after the amendment to Central Motor Vehicle Rules dated 28.03.2001. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. Accordingly I answer issue No.2 in the negative.”
6. We have perused the Ex.R4-Copy of ‘B’ Register Extract of the vehicle involved in the accident. The vehicle involved in the accident is KA-47/5673. The LMV Goods Vehicle, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., the laden weight of the said vehicle is 1450 kgs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan referred supra and in the case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. referred supra considered the said issue, and in the case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. referred supra at paragraph No.131 held as under:
“131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:-
(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between th
