- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12930 MFA No. 4989 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4989 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, POST BOX NO.78, JEWEL PLAZA, 1ST FLOOR, MARUTHI VEETHIKA, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT, BY IT’S MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.GULABI ACHARTHI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O KRISHNA ACHARYA, R/AT "PANCHAMA SRI NILAYA" MANCHIKODI, KUNJIBETTU POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT 2. ASHOK KUMAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O SOORYANNA HEGDE, R/AT KALYANI, KASABETTU UDUPI TALUK-576 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.VASANTHA LAKSHMI V., ADVOCTE FOR SRI. S.D.N.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.H.JAYAKARA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.361/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, UDUPI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12930 MFA No. 4989 of 2013 Rs.1,09,705/- WITH INTEREST @ 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No361/2012 dated 03.04.2013 by the Fast Track Court, Udupi, the Insurance Company is before this court questioning the liability. 2. The facts of the case are that on 26.01.2012 at about 11:30 hours when the claimant was walking on the side of the road, suddenly a car came from Udupi side and the driver in a rash and negligent manner came to the extreme wrong side of the road and dashed against the petitioner as a result she sustained grievous injuries. She was in hospital and took treatment as inpatient and she has spent amounts towards the treatment. 3. The trial court on the issue of liability has held that according to the Insurance Company the driver of the car was not having a valid driving license at the time of the accident. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12930 MFA No. 4989 of 2013 RW-1 has stated that the rider of the car was not holding DL to drive light motor vehicle. RW-1 has also stated that the said driver had D.L only in respect of two wheeler. In support of her contention Ex.R-1 is produced. RW-2 who is Asst. RTO Udupi has stated that the driver of the car was not holding DL to drive light Motor Vehicle. But in the cross-examination he has also stated that they were not aware of the issuance of D.L. relating to light motor vehicle to the driver of the car by the other RTO office. RW-3 i.e., respondent No.1 has stated that RTO Shimoga has issued DL to him. He has produced extract of DL which is marked as Ex.R-3. Ex.R-3 goes to show that RW-3 is authorized to drive light motor vehicle (N/T) with effect from 18.05.2007. There is nothing on record which goes to show that DL issued by the RTO, Shimoga has been revoked or suspended. Hence, the trial court has held that the driving license is valid when the accident has taken place and held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company had drawn the attention of the court to Ex.R-3. Ex.R-3 is a driving license issued by the RTO Udupi. Basing on Ex.R-3 he submits that the said Ex.R-3 did not bear the seal of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12930 MFA No. 4989 of 2013 the RTO Udupi. Further, it is submitted that both the owner and the driver are served and they failed to come forward and place before the court the license, which clearly shows that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the car was not having a valid driving license. It is submitted that the court without appreciating the same and contrary to the contents of RW-3 has held that there is a valid driving license which is factually incorrect. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submits that the trial Court had rightly considered the evidence and rightly granted the compensation and held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 6. Having heard the counsels on either side, perused the material on record. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the driver is not having a valid driving license to drive the vehicle basing on Ex.R-3. The trial court has given a finding that the driver is having light motor vehicle license with effect from 18.05.2017, there is nothing on record which goes to show that DL issued by the RTO Shimoga has been revoked or suspended. This court has perused Ex.R-3. Ex.R-3 mentions - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12930 MFA No. 4989 of 2013 about the license in respect of the heavy motor vehicle between 31.01.2012 to 30.01.2015 and it shows that earlier he was having a driving license between 2002 to 2007. The findings of the Trial Court is that there is no material to show whether the D.L issued by RTO, Udupi has been revoked or suspended, the said finding is without any basis. Further when there is an opportunity given to the owner and to the driver and when they have failed to place the driving license before the court, in the considered opinion of this court in the light of Ex.R-3., it has to be held that the driver is not having a valid driving license as on the date of accident and the principle of pay and recover will apply. i. Accordingly, appeal of the insurance company is partly allowed. The Insurance Company shall pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. ii. The amount in deposit by the Insurance Company shall be forthwith transmitted to the Tribunal. iii. The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12930 MFA No. 4989 of 2013 copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay. iv. No Costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5