- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20562 RP No. 363 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REVIEW PETITION NO. 363 OF 2021 IN M.F.A. NO.1510/2009 C/W. M.F.A. NO.11976/2007 BETWEEN: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE PRAVASI MANDIRA STREET DAVANAGERE NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD KRISHI BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS MANAGER …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BALAKRISHNA RAO S/O KANDOJI RAO SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR 1(a) NAGARAJ S/O. LATE BALAKRISHNA RAO MAJOR R/AT OPP. OLD BUS STAND ROAD DAVANAGERE. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20562 RP No. 363 of 2021 2. SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O HANUMANTHU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. LAVANYA W/O HANUMANTHU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 4. GAGANA W/O HANUMANTHU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 5. MEGHANA W/O HANUMANTHU AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS 6. HANUMAIAH W/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS 7. THIMMAKKA W/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.113 2ND CROSS, JAI MARUTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 096. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2025, NOTICE TO R1(a) AND R2 TO R7 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW OF ITS JUDGMENT DATED 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020 PASSED IN MFA NO.1510/2009 C/W MFA NO.11976/2007 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN SO FAR AS LIABILITY ASPECT AND HEAR AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND THE GROUNDS URGED IN THIS REVIEW PETITION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20562 RP No. 363 of 2021 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and this review petition is filed against the judgment passed in M.F.A.No.1510/2009 C/w. M.F.A.No.11976/2007. 2. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that evidence on record and in particular is that route permit vide Ex.R3 indicates that the validity period was 24.05.2000 and 23.05.2005 and the bus was permitted to depart at 6.00 a.m. from Davanagere to Sasaluhalli and back at 7.50 a.m., depart at 8.00 a.m. from Davanagere to Tiptur and back at 9.00 p.m. The accident occurred at 6.40 a.m. and at no stretch of imagination, the bus is permitted to ply from Yediyur to Tiptur in morning hours. It is also contended that the contention of insured-respondent No.1 even for sake arguments, cannot be presumed that the bus was proceeded on Yediyur-Tiptur road due to blockage of road. The place and time of accident contradict the version of respondent No.1. The evidence on record, in crystal clear terms establishes that there - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20562 RP No. 363 of 2021 was no route permit or can be presumed that the deviation is a fundamental breach. Legally, Insurance Company Limited-the petitioner is not liable to pay compensation or it is matter to apply the principles of ‘pay and recover’ covering the interest of victims of accident. It is further contended that petitioner being a statutory body, cannot be directed to deposit the amount and not viewing the factual aspects is a failure of justice and there is a clear deviation. The decisions construes that ‘no permit no liability’ or if considered as fundamental breach, then apply ‘pay and recover’. Non-consideration of the said material evidence/fact has resulted in failure of justice and it requires interference by reviewing the judgment. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, though notice is ordered, inspite of service is held sufficient to the respondents, the respondents have not engaged any counsel. Having considering the grounds urged in the review petition, this Court while considering the material on record, taken note of the very contention raised while deciding point No.(i) whether the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insured/owner as contended in M.F.A.No.1510/2009 and taking note of said fact into - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20562 RP No. 363 of 2021 consideration, in paragraph No.13 discussed in detail the principles laid down in the judgment of THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SMT. JAYAMMA AND OTHERS. reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1849, wherein discussion was made and observed that violation must be of such a nature that it is the primary cause of the accident and not otherwise. With this object, the Legislature has spelled out grounds on which the Insurance Company can avoid its liability. The defence provided to the Insurance Company is a statutory right. Further, it is observed that the Court cannot import or read any other grounds than what are spelled out in sub-Section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. It is also observed that, a breach only invites criminal penalty, as such, it is not so fundamental to say there is breach of policy condition. 4. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court also in the case of DURUGAMMA VS. S.G. NARESH S/O. GOVINDAPPA AND OTHERS reported in 2017 (1) KAR. L.R 251 discussed with regard to Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments, in paragraph No.15 made the observation that burden shifts on the Insurance Company to prove that there was a deviation and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20562 RP No. 363 of 2021 admittedly, the place of accident is not in dispute and also the permit given is in respect of the route of Davanagere and Tiptur and an accident has taken place in between Tiptur and Turuvekere road and permit is also marked as Ex.R3. The claimants have also not disputed the permit, instead admitted the deviation. This Court also observed that having considered the principles laid down in the judgment in DURUGAMMA’s case is very clear that it is only a deviation and the same is not a fundamental breach and no doubt, in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. CHALLA BHARATHAMMA AND OTHERS reported in 2004 AIR SCW 5301, the Apex Court held that if no permit, it amounts to an infraction, but in the case on hand, it is only a deviation. Hence, the very approach of the Tribunal is that the Insurance Company is not liable, is erroneous. 5. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments, this Court comes to the conclusion that liability has to be fastened on the insurance company and comes to the conclusion that the finding of the Trial Court is erroneous. When such being the case, question of reviewing the judgment passed in M.F.A.No.1510/2009 C/w. M.F.A.No.11976/2007 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20562 RP No. 363 of 2021 does not arise and I do not find any ground to review the judgment passed by this Court. Since no ground is made out to review the order and mistake apparent on record. 6. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42