- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20418 MFA No. 10439 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10439 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, B M ROAD, SHIMOGA, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, IN R.O AT NO.144, SHUBHARAM SHOPPING COMPLEX, M.G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SRISHAILA S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SATTAR PAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O DARIYAL, R/OF S R S BOREWELL AGENCIES PARK, EXTENSION, DURGIGUDI, SHIMOGA-577 201. 2. KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O SELVARAJ, (DRIVER OF LORRY NO. TN 34/J.2862), R/OF S R S BOREWELL AGENCIES PARK, EXTENSION, DURGIGUDI, SHIMOGA-577 201. 3. SELVARAJ A, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O ANGAMUTHU, (OWNER OF LORRY NO. TN.34/J.2862) R/AT ROOM NO.13, SANNABASAPPA HOUSING COMPLEX, PARK EXTENSION, Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20418 MFA No. 10439 of 2013 DURGIGUDI, SHIMOGA-577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ARUN A GADAG, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI SEENAPPA.M, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.549/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MACT-2, SHIMOGA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,71,200/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION OR DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. None appear for respondent No.3. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC.No.549/2012 by learned II Additional District Judge and MACT-2, Shivamogga, respondent No.3-Insurance Company has approached this Court in appeal questioning the liability fastened upon it. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20418 MFA No. 10439 of 2013 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 08.01.2012, when the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) was going as a Cleaner in a lorry bearing No.TN-34/J- 2862, the driver drove the same in a negligent manner and toppled by the side of the road resulting in the petitioner sustaining injuries. 4. On issuance of notice, the respondents i.e., driver and owner had appeared before the Tribunal. They contended that the driver had valid driving licence but however denied that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. They contended that the vehicle was insured by respondent No.3 i.e., the appellant herein and therefore, any liability has to be fastened upon the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW.1, the Doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked. The respondent No.3-Insurance - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20418 MFA No. 10439 of 2013 Company produced the Insurance Policy at Ex.R1 and its official was examined as RW.1. 6. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,71,200/- and fastened the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company is before this Court. Along with the appeal memo, the appellant- Insurance Company also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC seeking to produce the endorsement of the RTO to show that the driver of the lorry was not having a valid driving licence as on date of the accident. 7. The said document being of pivotal importance in the case on hand, the application deserved to be allowed. Consequently, the endorsement regarding driving licence is taken on record. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company would submit that the driving licence of the driver of the lorry was valid till 17.03.2011 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20418 MFA No. 10439 of 2013 thereafter, he had renewed the licence. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to consider this aspect though such evidence was placed on record by RW.1 in his affidavit. It is contended that when the driving licence of the driver was not valid as on date of the accident, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/claimant would submit that it is not that the driver of the vehicle was not at all having a driving licence. He submits that the driving licence was valid till 17.03.2011 and the accident happened on 08.01.2012. Subsequent there to, the driving licence was renewed and it was to be valid till the year 2015. Therefore, he submit that when the owner of the vehicle as well as the driver have come on record and have taken up the defence that the driver was having a valid driving licence, there being no reason for any disqualification for the driver, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. In - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20418 MFA No. 10439 of 2013 this regard, he relies on the judgment in the case of ILR 2004 Vol 1 Kerala 163. 10. On a careful perusal of the records, they show that the photo copy of the driving licence was produced before the Tribunal but it was not marked. The said Driving Licence, being in consonance with the endorsement which is now produced by the appellant herein has also to be considered by this Court. It is not in dispute that the driving licence was valid till 17.03.2011 and the date of renewal is not mentioned in the said photo copy of the driving licence. Similarly, the endorsement now produced by the Insurance Company under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC show that it was renewed on 03.02.2012. Thus, it is evident that non-existence of the driving licence was for a brief period. In fact, there were no such disqualification for the driver which would disentitle him the renewal. It is pertinent to note that the owner of the vehicle has appeared before the Tribunal and has taken up the contention that the driver had the driving licence. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20418 MFA No. 10439 of 2013 There cannot be any doubt that the driver had driving licence but it had expired. During the period of such expiry, there is nothing on record to show that he would be disqualified to renew the driving licence. In that view of the matter, there being no other material on record which would disentitle or disqualify the driver from renewing the driving licence, the contention of the owner of the vehicle has to be accepted. 11. It is pertinent to note that the judgment in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. SWARAN SINGH1 lays down that if a defence is available to Insurance Company is that the insured with the knowledge that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, had entrusted the vehicle to him, then obviously there is a conscious violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is pertinent to note that such conscious violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by the owner of the vehicle is not established and simply because the 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20418 MFA No. 10439 of 2013 driver had not renewed the driving licence but subsequently renewed it and there being no disqualification during the period of the expiry, it would not be possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 12. Even otherwise, when the owner of the vehicle has appeared before the Tribunal and has taken up the contention that his driver had the driving licence, the judgment in the case of PAPPU AND OTHER V/S VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER2 would come in play bringing the propositions laid down by the Apex Court in the case of SWARAN SINGH (referred supra). Therefore, even if the document sought to be produced by the Insurance Company is taken on record, it would not be of any assistance to the appellant herein. 13. In that view of the matter, the appeal is bereft of any merits. In the result, the following: 2 AIR 2018 Sc 592 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20418 MFA No. 10439 of 2013 ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. The amount in deposit before this Court is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61