- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21726 MFA No. 475 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 475 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., D O II, NO.202, NORTH WING, II FLOOR, BRIGADE PLAZA, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, S C ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE- P, KALINGA RAO ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RENUKAMMA, W/O LATE DEVARAJ NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A DEBBANALLI VILLAGE, BUDIKOTE POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 101. 2. PATTABI RAMAN, M/S MAHALAKSHMI LORRY SERVICES, NO.83, IST MAIN ROAD K P N EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 002. Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21726 MFA No. 475 of 2014 3. NARAYANAPPA, S/O VENKATAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 4. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 BOTH R/A AJAPANAHALLI VILLAGE, DINNAHALLI POST, MASTI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 101. 5. AJMATHULLA KHAN, S/O SAMIULLA KHAN, MAJOR, R/O SBM ROAD, MALUR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH M.,ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. H.ARAVIND REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. N.GOPALKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4, R5-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:10.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7177/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 24TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.6,80,128/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT TO THE CLAIMANTS TOWARDS COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21726 MFA No. 475 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 10.10.2013, passed by the V Addl.Small Causes Judge, XXIV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (for short `Tribunal), in MVC.No.7177/2007. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimants that on 14.09.2007, around 6.00 p.m., at Markandaiah tank road, Dyavarahalli cross, Bangarpet Taluk, deceased Devaraj met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-A-5283 by its driver. As a result, said Devaraj sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. The deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident. He was an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21726 MFA No. 475 of 2014 agriculturist and doing milk vending and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Claimant No.1 is the wife and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are parents of the deceased and they were dependent on the income of the deceased. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.20 lakhs. 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 5, who are the owners of the offending vehicle, remained absent before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and denied the averments made in the claim petition and also denied its liability to pay compensation on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of policy of insurance. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination. 6. The claimants examined one witness as PW-1 and marked 9 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-9. Respondent No.2 examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21726 MFA No. 475 of 2014 marked 6 documents as per Exs.R-1 to R-6. Other respondents have not led evidence. 7. After hearing both parties and appreciating the materials on record, the Tribunal disposed of the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.4,29,000/- and held respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 8. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the liability fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle, claimant No.1 and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have preferred MFA.No.9836/2008 before this Court. They had also sought for a direction to the insurer to indemnify the award amount. 9. The Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 15.02.2013, disposed of the appeal by remanding the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21726 MFA No. 475 of 2014 accordance with law and directed the Tribunal to pass suitable orders. 10. Thereafter, the Tribunal reheard the matter and once again allowed the claim petition by the impugned judgment and award dated 10.10.2013 and awarded the compensation of Rs.6,80,128/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization and directed respondent No.2 to pay the compensation and to recover it from respondent Nos.1 and 5 in accordance with law. 11. Therefore, respondent No.2-insurer challenged the said finding of the Tribunal before this Court in the present appeal, primarily on the ground that the matter was not remanded for the purpose of enhancement of compensation and that fastening the liability on respondent No.2 to pay the compensation and to recover it from the owners of the vehicle, is not in accordance with law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21726 MFA No. 475 of 2014 12. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed before this court. 13. The points that arise for my determination are: " (i) Whether the Tribunal erred in enhancing the compensation after the matter was remanded? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is erred in directing the insurer-respondent No.2 to pay the compensation and recover it from the owner? (iii) What order? Point No.1 : 14. The main contention raised in the grounds of appeal by the insurer is that this Court did not remand the matter for reconsideration of compensation. Instead, the remand was made solely on the ground that respondent Nos.1 and 5 did not appear before the Court earlier and they had not been heard in the matter. Therefore, the matter was remanded only to provide them an opportunity to be heard. But, the Tribunal without considering the findings of this Court, enhanced the compensation, which is erroneous. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21726 MFA No. 475 of 2014 15. The said contention of the insurer is not tenable. MFA.No.9836/2008 was filed by the claimants i.e., wife and parents of the deceased, seeking enhancement of the compensation, as well as a direction to the insurer to indemnify and pay the compensation amount. The said fact is mentioned in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA.No.9836/2008 at Page No.5. Therefore, the earlier judgment and award were challenged by the claimants not only for seeking a direction to the insurer to pay the compensation, but also for enhancement of the award. In Page No.9 of the said judgment, the Division Bench has ordered that : " The impugned judgment and award dated 01.04.2008/17.05.2008 is hereby set aside, matter stands remitted back to Tribunal for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law. The appellants and the 2nd respondent-insurer both are directed to file necessary application for adducing oral and documentary evidence within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment." - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21726 MFA No. 475 of 2014 16. Therefore, the contention of the insurer that the matter was remanded solely to decide the question of liability to pay the compensation by the insurer is not tenable. The judgment of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded with a direction to reconsider the facts afresh in accordance with law and even parties were permitted to lead evidence. When the earlier judgment passed by the Tribunal was set aside and the Tribunal was directed to reconsider the matter afresh, the question of remanding the matter for limited purpose does not arise. As such, the said contention of the insurer is not tenable. 17. The Tribunal was justified in rehearing the matter and awarding a just and reasonable amount of compensation based on the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find any fault in the said finding of the Tribunal. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21726 MFA No. 475 of 2014 Point No.2 : 18. Undisputedly, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. Earlier he had licence to drive the light motor vehicle. As on the date of the accident, he was not authorized to drive heavy motor vehicle and the period of licence was also lapsed. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that the insurer shall pay the said compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 5. There is no error in the said findings of the Tribunal. The grounds of appeal are not tenable. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the negative. 19. For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 10.10.2013, passed by the V Addl.Small - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21726 MFA No. 475 of 2014 Causes Judge, XXIV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC.No.7177/2007, is confirmed. (iii) Whatever amount deposited by the appellant-insurer shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. Registry is directed to send back the records to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14