- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1958 MFA No. 202509 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202509 OF 2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., E-8 EPIP, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302 022, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, (AUTHORISED SIGNATORY). …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAVITRI D/O LATE DHULAPPA @ MAHANTESH, AGE: 34 YEARS OCC: TEACHER AT SHRI CHANNABASAVESHWAR LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL JERATAGI, TQ. GULBARGA, NOW NIL, U/G OF HER SISTER SMT. BASAMMA KADLI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O VILLAGE REVNOOR, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. GULBARGA, NOW RESIDIGN AT NALWAR, TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 103. 2. PRAKASH S/O NAGAPPA WASTARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS OWNER OF AUTO NO.KA-32/A-8785, R/O VILLAGE WASTARI, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102. Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1958 MFA No. 202509 of 2023 …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHILCES ACT, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2023 IN M.V.C NO.879/2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHITTAPUR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award in MVC No. 879 of 2018 dated 06-02-2023 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chittapur. 3. The grievance of the appellant-Insurance Company is that, though the accident had occurred in the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1958 MFA No. 202509 of 2023 year 2013, a claim petition was filed in the year 2018 and such delay has not been explained. The second contention is that the driver of the auto rickshaw was not having a valid driving licence. 4. The perusal of the impugned judgment would show that delay in filing the petition was not at all raised before it. Moreover, if the injury which has occurred to the petitioner is continuing one, there is no such limitation that would come into play. Moreover, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, does not impose any timelines to file a claim petition. Under these circumstances, the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that the petition is filed with 05 years delay cannot hold good. Secondly, in para 15, the Tribunal discusses about the driving licence. It observes that, the notice issued to the owner by the Insurance Company had returned unserved. Moreover, the charge sheet filed against the driver of the auto rickshaw did not indict the driver for not possessing driving licence. Therefore, it found that the evidence in the form of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1958 MFA No. 202509 of 2023 chargesheet has not been sufficiently rebutted by any cogent evidence and as such, it fastened the liability upon the appellant herein. There is no infirmity in the said the reasoning of the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is bereft of any merits and as such, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56 CT: AK