- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33273 MFA No. 4735 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4735 OF 2017 (MV-DM) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 027 NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, BANGALORE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI B RAMADASU S/O SRI B HANUMANTHAPPA AGED MAJOR R/AT NO. 1/386, APPILEPALLI VILLAGE & POST KUNDRUPI(M) ANANTHPUR DISTRICT - 515 766 OWNER OF LGV BEARING NO.AP-02-TA-0591. 2. IFFCI-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, NO.141, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 043 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON POLICY NO.1-RZXOWI P 40077393454. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33273 MFA No. 4735 of 2017 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O DATED 11.06.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.650/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M AND XXIII A.S.C.J, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the Tribunal in MVC No.650/2014 dated 03.01.2017 passed by the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. 2. Claim petition was filed by the Divisional Controller, KSRTC, for damages caused to the bus bearing No. KA-01-F- 8353. 3. The case of the petitioner i.e., Divisional Controller of KSRTC is that while the above bus being a passenger vehicle, was travelling from Bengaluru to Davangere on 18.10.2011 with normal speed. At that time, one Mahendra Bolero bearing - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33273 MFA No. 4735 of 2017 registration No.AP-02-TA-0591, came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bus. As a result, its front windscreen, front left side portion, font left head light and indicator were damaged. Petitioner spent Rs.26,417/- for repair and due to the accident, the vehicle was kept idle for 3 days and thus, it resulted in operational loss of Rs.36,618/- and thus, they filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.63,035/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. 4. The petitioner got examined PWs 1 to 3 on his behalf and also got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P8. Respondents got examined RW1. A copy of the policy documents etc. were got marked as R1 to R14. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal granted entire amount of compensation claimed but with interest at the rate of 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has preferred this appeal. 5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel and perused the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33273 MFA No. 4735 of 2017 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.63,035/- with interest at 6% p.a., exonerated the Insurance Company following the law laid down by this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by its Manager vs. Padmavathamma in MFA No.1837/2008, however, ignored the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Iyyapan vs. United Insurance India Co. Ltd. and Another reported in AIR 2013 SC 2262. Further, he submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Manuara Khatun and Others vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796, has held that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 7. He submits that therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the owner of the goods vehicle. Respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal. He submits that the Tribunal has held that there was no driving license to the driver and there was no valid permit and as the same amounts to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33273 MFA No. 4735 of 2017 violation of terms of the policy, Insurance Company was exonerated and respondent No.1 owner was directed to pay the amount. 8. In view of the citations referred to above by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to direct the Insurance Company to deposit the amount and to recover the same from respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle based on the award of the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal in MVC No.650/2014 dated 03.01.2017 passed by the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is modified to the extent mentioned below. (ii) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.63,035/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within a period of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33273 MFA No. 4735 of 2017 one month from the date of this order before the Tribunal and thereafter, shall recover the same from respondent No.1/the owner of the offending vehicle. (iii) Appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8