- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16087 MFA No. 9633 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9633 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN: M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.5/5, 3RD FLOOR, MONARK CHURCH, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REPTD. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.3/5, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE, BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD, IIM POST, BANGALORE-576 302, 3RD FLOOR, S&S CORNER BUILDING, REPTD. BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL APPELLANT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ABDUL KHADAR, S/O. ABDUL NAVAZ, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. S.D. JAYARAM NAGAR, MANDYA-571 401. 2. SIDDARAMU S/O. KASHILINGEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/O. G. KEBBAHALLI VILLAGE, GOWDAGERE POST, MANDYA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (V/O/D 07.06.2018 NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT; BY SRI. R. PRAMOD ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16087 MFA No. 9633 of 2015 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.8.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.738/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.40,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. 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 award passed in M.V.C.No.738/2012 dated 24.08.2015 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Mandya, the appellant/Insurance company is before this Court questioning the liability. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 28.04.2012 at about 8.45 p.m., the claimant was going towards Sathanur from his house on his Bajaj Scooter on Sathanur-Srinivasapura gate on the left side of the road by observing road rules and regulations. At that time one Canter vehicle being driven by its driver from Sathanur side come in very rash and negligent manner so as to endangering to human life and dashed against the scooter of the claimant from the back of the canter and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16087 MFA No. 9633 of 2015 caused the accident. Due to this accident the claimant fell down from the scooter and sustained multiple injuries and scooter was also badly damaged. Immediately, he was taken to District hospital, Mandya wherein he was admitted as inpatient for 15 days as he had sustained fracture of right clavicle and surgery was done. Even after the discharge from the hospital, he had taken follow up treatment as per the advise of the doctor. 3. It is the case of the appellant/Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid driving licence as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further submitted that the driver is chargesheeted under Section 3(1) Read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal had held that since the insurance company had failed to prove the violation of the policy conditions being insurer of the offending vehicle bound to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, the Tribunal had held that the driver of the offending vehicle and the insurance company are jointly and separately liable to pay the compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16087 MFA No. 9633 of 2015 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance company submits that when the charge sheet is filed by the claimant and when the charge sheet was considered by the Court for fixing the liability on the insurance company, part of it cannot be ignored when the charge sheet itself shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving license. In the light of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others1 as the driver is not having the driving license, the principle of pay and recover will apply and the insurance company can recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ claimants submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered and passed orders and no interference is called for. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Considering the charge sheet that is filed under Section 3(1) Read with Section 181 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and as the charge sheet is already considered for the purpose of determining the rash and 1 AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1531 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16087 MFA No. 9633 of 2015 negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. This Court is of the view that in light of the law laid down in Swaran Singh’s case referred supra, the principle of pay and recover will apply. 7. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/Insurance Company is partly allowed and the insurance company shall pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. i. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transmitted to the Tribunal. ii. The appellant/Insurance company shall pay the amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. iii. The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iv. The appellant - Insurance Company shall deposit the remaining amount, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16087 MFA No. 9633 of 2015 v. No costs. vi. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 46