- 1 - MFA No. 3768 of 2015 RESERVED ON : 16.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 03.03.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3768 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 144, SHUBARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY IT’S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, E. JAYASHEELAN. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. L SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHETAN @ RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O JAYARAM, R/AT NO.17/9, FIRST CROSS, RUKMININAGAR BANGALORE – 560 079. AND ALSO NO.85, FLOWER STREET, TURUVEKERE, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 2. M/S. TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, - 2 - MFA No. 3768 of 2015 NO. 57/58, 2ND CROSS, KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE – 560 001. (R C OWNER OF LORRY BEARING No.KA-01-A7010) 3. SMT. MANJAMMA, W/O LATE RAVINDRANATH, R/A HALLIKAR BEEDHI, TURUVEKERE, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIRAJIN BASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 08.07.2021) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.09.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.4359/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 28TH ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,32,120/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT IN COURT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - MFA No. 3768 of 2015 CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurer challenging the Judgment and Award dated 06.09.2014 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) in M.V.C.No.4359/2011. 2. Heard Sri.L.Sreekanta Rao., learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurer and Sri.Sirajin Basha., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-claimant. Respondent No.1 though served, is unrepresented. Notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with vide order dated 08.07.2021. 3. The parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal. 4. In an accident occurred on 22.09.2010 at about 10:45 pm., due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.KA-01-A-7010 by its driver, the Claimant who was pillion in a Hero Honda motorcycle sustained grievous injuries. The claimant filed Claim Petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained. - 4 - MFA No. 3768 of 2015 5. Upon notice, respondent No.1- owner of the lorry as well as respondent No.2- Insurer appeared through their counsel and filed separate statement of objection. 6. Respondent No.1 admitted that he was the owner of the lorry as on the date of accident and further admitted that the lorry was duly insured with the second respondent – Insurer and in the event any compensation be awarded, it is the insurer to indemnify the risk. However, he has disputed the age, income of the claimant, reduction of his working capacity and amount spent towards medical treatment. 7. Respondent No.2- Insurance Company filed its statement of objection denying the petition averments, but admitted that the vehicle is covered under the policy stated in Paragraph No.3 of the statement of objection. However, the insurer has raised a defence that the petitioner to prove that there is any liability on the respondent vicariously or otherwise and liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions appended to the - 5 - MFA No. 3768 of 2015 policy. Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and verification of valid R.T.O documents. A further defence has been taken in Paragraph No.4 of the statement of objection which reads as under: “Without prejudice the aforesaid contentions this respondent submit that the driver of Vehicle Lorry bearing Regn No.KA-91 A 7010 was not holding valid and Effective Driving License to drive that particular class of vehicle as on the date of the accident in question. It is further submitted that this respondent is not liable to indemnify the claim against I respondent/ insured since he has failed to submit D.L particulars and the R.T.O records intimating the accident in question in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy in question.” Apart from this specific defence, they have denied the other petition averments. 8. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and a doctor as PW.2 and produced 88 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P88. On behalf of the respondents, one Sri.D.Somashekar Raju – Supervisor in Legal Department of respondent No.1 Concern has been - 6 - MFA No. 3768 of 2015 examined as RW.1, wherein he has produced Ex.R1 Letter of Authorization. This witness was not cross-examined by the Insurer. 9. One Mr.Vishwanath.K.B – the Investigating Officer has been examined as RW.2. He has stated that he has filed the chargesheet after conducting investigation and the driver was holding a valid license. He further stated that though copy of DL is not in the case file, however in the reply to Section 133 Notice, DL particular has been mentioned and he has verified the same and returned it back to the driver. 10. The Tribunal after going through the entire material placed before it, answered Issue No.1 framed on rash and negligent driving and Issue No.2 on entitlement of compensation, both in the affirmative and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,32,120/- along with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit in Court under various heads. 11. While answering the liability, at Paragraph No.23 of the Judgment, after going through Ex.R2, the - 7 - MFA No. 3768 of 2015 Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver was holding valid Driving License to drive transport vehicle and the validity is from 26.03.2009 to 25.03.2012. Further, since the accident had occurred on 22.09.2010, the driver was holding valid and effective license and held that the Insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and directed the Insurer to pay the compensation in a time bound manner. It is this judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is called in question by the Insurer on the ground of liability. 12. Sri.L.Sreekanta Rao., taking this Court through the appeal memorandum, particularly the facts stated in Paragraph No.(e), found at ink Page No.5 of the appeal submits that post to the Judgment, they have investigated regarding the particulars of the DL with the Transport Department and upon verification it was found that the DL particulars which has been furnished with the number was issued in the name of one Patel Minal Mithul and not of the person by name Khan Jamaluddin S/o.Salauddin as indicated in Ex.R2. In these circumstances, the driver was - 8 - MFA No. 3768 of 2015 not holding any valid and effective driving license, hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. With this, he submits that the appeal be allowed setting aside the liability on the Insurer. 13. In contrast, the learned counsel for the respondent argued supporting the judgment that there was nothing placed before the Tribunal by the Insurer regarding the DL particulars now taken in this appeal for the first time. He further submits that even if the contention now urged without admitting is taken as it is, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the claim. Even before this Court, except stating the contention in paragraph No.(e), the Insurer has not produced the copy of the extract said to have been obtained by it through the Transport Department in a manner known to law. In these circumstances, the new facts now taken in the appeal for the first time, without there being anything before the Tribunal except the general statement in the statement of objection would not enure to the benefit of the Insurer to - 9 - MFA No. 3768 of 2015 seek exoneration from paying the compensation and sought to dismiss the appeal. 14. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers as well as Trial Court record. 15. Except taking a general objection in the statement of objection, the Insurance Company has not at all stated specifically regarding the driving license of the Driver of the offending vehicle which they have now raised in the appeal particularly at Paragraph No.(e) stated supra. Neither the copy of the extract has been produced along with the memo nor any application filed seeking for production of the same. 16. It is not the case that the trial of the case has been started and concluded within a short span of time. The petition was filed in 2011 and reached its conclusion in the year 2014 i.e., on 06.09.2014 that is date of passing of the judgment and award. The document at Ex.R2 i.e., the reply to notice under Section 133 of the MV Act by the owner to the Police is well within the knowledge of the - 10 - MFA No. 3768 of 2015 Insurer. However, the Insurer has not taken any steps before the Tribunal to summon the authority which has issued the license, despite knowing the license’s particulars. In these circumstances, it becomes very hard for this Court to accept the contentions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer. In the result, the appeal fails as sans merits and accordingly, it is dismissed. 17. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. The balance compensation along with interest as ordered by the Tribunal shall be deposited by the appellant-Insurer before the concerned Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposit, the entire compensation shall be released in favor of the claimant on proper identification. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN