- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:953 MFA No. 496 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 496 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: THE TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE AT, 2ND FLOOR, JP & JAMBUKESWAR ARCADE, NO.69, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE-560052. DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS CLAIMS MANAGER SRI. ALOK GUPTA …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MUNIOBALAPPA S/O LATE MUNIPILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. KUM. M. SHOBA D/O MUNIOBALAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 3. MASTER ANAND M. S/O MUNIOBALAPPA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, BANGALORE-36. 4. MASTER M. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O MUNIOBALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, MINOR, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:953 MFA No. 496 of 2014 REP BY 1ST APPELLANT HIS FATHER/ NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF CHOKKONDAHALLI VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 130. RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 4 ARE PRESENTLY R/AT NO.48, MASJID ROAD, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 036. 5. SRI. SHARIF, S/O BAKSHU SAB MAJOR, R/AT YASHVANTHAPURA VILLAGE & POST, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT, V/O. DATED 23.09.2021) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7838/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER MACT-3, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,20,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:953 MFA No. 496 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the appellant who appears through video conference. Also heard Sri.Gopala Krishna N., learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 who appears physically before this Court. 2. Respondents No.1 to 4 herein filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation from the appellant herein as well as from respondent No.5 on the ground that the wife of the 1st respondent died in a road traffic accident and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto rickshaw which belongs to respondent No.5 herein and insured with the appellant herein. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, which dealt with the case as MVC No.7838/2011 rendered orders on 08.11.2013 holding that the appellant and respondent No.5 herein are liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- to respondents No.1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimants' for the sake of convenience and discussion). The Tribunal also ordered that out of the compensation granted, the owner of the vehicle shall pay 20% and the remaining 80% shall be paid by the appellant- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:953 MFA No. 496 of 2014 insurance company. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel Sri.A.Ravishankar submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence as on the date of accident to drive the said vehicle. Sufficient evidence was produced before the Tribunal to that effect. The Tribunal also directed the owner of the offending vehicle to produce driving licence extract of the driver who was on wheels at the time of accident. However, the owner failed to oblige the order of the Court and therefore the Tribunal took adverse inference. Learned counsel states that elaborate discussion was made regarding the merits of the matter at para 16 of the impugned order. Learned counsel also contends that as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence as on the date of accident, the Tribunal ought to have ordered owner of the vehicle to pay the entire compensation to the claimants and the Tribunal should have exonerated the appellant-insurance company from the liability. The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay 80% of the compensation. Learned counsel thereby seeks to pass necessary orders in the appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:953 MFA No. 496 of 2014 4. The submission that is made by the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 is that the law is well settled regarding the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation to the 3rd parties. Learned counsel states that owner of the offending vehicle undoubtedly failed to produce sufficient proof that his driver is holding valid and effective driving licence by the date of accident. Learned counsel also states that as the claimants should not suffer, the appeal may be disposed of taking care of the interest of the claimants also. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant by all the evidence he produced succeeded in establishing that the driver of the offending vehicle is not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive such vehicle by the date of accident. However, as rightly contended, the claimants should not suffer. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the insurance company i.e. the appellant herein should be directed to pay 80% of the compensation as ordered by the Tribunal to the claimants. However, liberty is required to be granted to the appellant- insurance company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle i.e. 5th respondent, as the 5th respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and such violation is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:953 MFA No. 496 of 2014 established before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.7838/2011 through order dated 8.11.2013 to the extent of 80% shall be paid by the appellant to the claimants i.e. respondents No.1 to 4 herein. (iii) On such payment, appellant is given liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.5 herein. (iv) The amount, if any in deposit, be transferred to the concerned Tribunal immediately. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34