- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14998 MFA No. 1943 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1943 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN: LEGAL MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.649, V.P. COMPLEX, JAYANAGAR, 5TH BLOCK, J.P. NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 41, NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GIC LTD., GOLDEN HEIGHTS, 4TH FLOOR, NO.1/2, 59TH 'C' CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. V. PALLAVI, W/O T.K. SHEKAR, NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2. S. THARUN S/O T.K. SHEKAR, NOW AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, 3. T.S. KRISHNAIAH, S/O SANJEEVANNA, NOW AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 4. SMT. AKKAYAMMA, W/O T.S. KRISHNAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SINCE MINOR REP, BY NAURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER AS 1ST RESPONDENT Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14998 MFA No. 1943 of 2017 ALL RE R/A NO.247, GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD, JAKKUR VILLAGE AND POST, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 64. 5. ASLAMKHANA, S/O MUSTAFAKHAN, NOW AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/A NO.67, NEAR RAJANNA HOUSE THIRUMENAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 64. 6. MAHADEVASWAMY, S/O RACHAPPA, NO.173, BSK, HARI TEMPLE, BANGALORE TALUK - 85. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 21.03.2024, NOTICE TO R5 AND R6 DISPENSED WITH; R1 AND R3 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DEAD R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.37/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 9,80,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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.37/2012 dated 26.11.2016 by the Court of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14998 MFA No. 1943 of 2017 Insurance Company is before this Court questioning the liability fastened on them. 2. It is the case of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal that the vehicle is not having a valid permit as on the date of the accident. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has observed that it is not the mistake of the 2nd respondent and it cannot be said that on the date of accident, the auto had no permit. On this ground, the 3rd respondent Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. The 3rd respondent has failed to prove that on the date of accident, 2nd respondent has no valid permit and DL as contended. Hence, the liability is fastened on the Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company submits that they have examined the RTO. As per the evidence of RTO, the permit is valid from 25.06.2012 to 24.06.2017. The accident had taken place on 07.05.2011, which clearly shows that as on that day, there was no permit for the said vehicle as it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. In the light of the law laid - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14998 MFA No. 1943 of 2017 down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amrit Paul Singh and another vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others1, the Insurance Company can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Tribunal had rightly held that as he being the 3rd party to the policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 5. As per the order dated 21.03.2024, notice to owner of the vehicle was dispensed with as they were placed exparte before the Tribunal. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. This Court had perused the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the permit and as per the evidence of the RTO, the permit is between 25.06.2012 to 24.06.2017. The accident had taken place on 07.05.2011. The finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company has not filed any other material to show that the permit was not there as on that day, is contrary to record and it needs to be 1 (2018) 7 SCC 558 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14998 MFA No. 1943 of 2017 interfered with. Considering the fact that the permit is valid between 25.06.2012 to 24.06.2017 and as on the date of accident, there was no valid permit to ply the said vehicle. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amrit Paul Singh's case referred supra, the principle of pay and recovery applies. i) Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. ii) The Insurance Company shall pay the compensation at the first instance then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. iii) The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. iv) Amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal without any delay. v) No costs. vi) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA CT: BHK