- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13018 MFA No. 20050 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20050 OF 2013 (MV-) BETWEEN: M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, BY ITS MANAGER, PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK, NICHLOAS PRIMAL TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, GANPATHRAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-13, REP BY SENIOR EXECUTIVE CLAIMS TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 2ND FLOOR, J P & DEVI JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE NO.69 MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560052. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI. KALAGOUDA S/O DEVAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE NOW NIL, R/O. AINAPUR, TAL. ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM. 2. SRI. AVINASH S/O MAHADEV CHAVAN AGE: MAJOR OCC: BUSINESS R/O. NAVEKHED, TAL. VALVE, DIST: SANGALI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR BURJI, ADV FOR R1, SMT. GEETA K.M, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03-11-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1536/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,06,710/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13018 MFA No. 20050 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 03.11.2012 passed in MVC No.1536/2011 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 13.05.2011, the petitioner was proceeding on the bicycle to bring milk. At that time, one TATA goods tempo bearing registration No.MH.10/Q-2001 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bicycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver possessed a valid - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13018 MFA No. 20050 of 2013 and effective driving license and the policy was in force as of the date of the accident. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle. 4. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. There is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioner to substantiate his case examined himself as PW.1, examined the Doctor as PW.2 and marked 18 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-18. In rebuttal, the owner of the offending vehicle was examined as RW.1. The driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW.2, a witness was examined as RW-3 and the officer of the insurance company - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13018 MFA No. 20050 of 2013 was examined as RW.4 and marked 7 documents as Exs.R1 to R-7. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 03.11.2012 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,06,710/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization and held that the owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount. 8. The insurance company, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company and the counsel for the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that as of the date of the accident, the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license. The owner has entrusted the vehicle to an unauthorized person, who did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13018 MFA No. 20050 of 2013 the accident. He submits that Ex.R-1-driving licence discloses that the driver has obtained a license with effect from 22.06.2011 whereas the accident had occurred on 13.05.2011. He submits that there is a breach of the policy condition. The Tribunal, without considering the said aspect committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, if this Court concludes that if the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license, the insurance company be directed to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner. He submits that, the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner against the 3rd party at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. To buttress his argument, he placed reliance on the full bench judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13018 MFA No. 20050 of 2013 Bijapur by its Divisonal Manager v. Yallavva and another reported in ILR 2020 KAR 2239. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dispose of the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability. 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the petitioner having suffered injuries in the road traffic accident. The petitioner has produced a charge sheet at EX.P-6, which discloses that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 15. Reg. Liability: The insurance company has taken a specific defense in the statement of objections that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The petitioner arrayed the owner of the offending vehicle as respondent No.1 before the tribunal. Although respondent No.1 appeared through counsel, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13018 MFA No. 20050 of 2013 he did not produce any license to show that as of the date of the accident, the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. The respondent has produced the driving licence marked as Ex.R-1 which discloses that the driver obtained a licence after the accident. Admittedly, as of the date of the accident, the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. The owner has entrusted the vehicle to an unauthorised person who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Thus, there is a violation of the policy conditions. The said aspect was not adequately considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in saddling the liability. The finding regarding liability fastened on the insurance company deserves to be set aside. 16. Admittedly, the vehicle was insured with the insurance company as of the date of the accident. Though the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner against the 3rd party at the first instance and recover the same from - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13018 MFA No. 20050 of 2013 the owner of the vehicle. In view of the same, the point is regarding Liability is answered accordingly. ORDER The Appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 03.11.2012 passed in MVC No.1536/2011 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belgaum, fastening liability on the insurance company is set aside. The claim petition against the insurance company is dismissed. The owner is held liable to pay the compensation amount. The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13018 MFA No. 20050 of 2013 The Registry is directed to transfer the amount in deposit and the TCR to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Draw the award accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE KMV CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1