- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4841 MFA No. 20092 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20093 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20092 OF 2012 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20093 OF 2012 IN MFA NO. 20092 OF 2012 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD, C. G. HOSPITAL ROAD, NEAR VIDYARTHI BHAVAN, DAVANGERE, REPTED. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI, REPTED. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR , ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JAYALINGAPPA S/O. BASAVARAJAPPA HALAKOPPA, AGE 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O. BELAGALPETH, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2. Y. S. DEVANGAD, AGE MAJOR, R/O. BANASHANKARI TRANSPORT, MASUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH ANDANIMATH, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4841 MFA No. 20092 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20093 of 2012 WITH MVC NO.201/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HANAGAL, EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 22.03.2011 TO ABSOLVE THE APPELLANT FROM LIABILITY TO PAY THE COMPENSATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IN MFA NO. 20093 OF 2012 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD, C. G. HOSPITAL ROAD, NEAR VIDYARTHI BHAVAN, DAVANGERE, REPTED. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI, REPTED. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR , ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PUTTAPPA S/O. MALLESHAPPA HADAPAD AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER & AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNASIKATTI VILLAGE, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2. Y. S. DEVANGAD, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BANASHANKARI TRANSPORT, MASUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH ANDANIMATH, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH MVC NO.202/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HANAGAL, EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 22.03.2011 TO ABSOLVE THE APPELLANT FROM LIABILITY TO PAY THE COMPENSATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4841 MFA No. 20092 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20093 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 22.03.2011 passed in MVC Nos.201/2006 and 202/2006 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hanagal, challenging its liability to pay compensation. Therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: It is the contention of the claimants that on 20.11.2004 around 2.00 a.m. on P.B.road near Sagar Dhaba, Bankapur village, they parked their Tempo bearing Reg.No.Ka-27/1516 on the left side of the road for replacing the tyre of the said vehicle. At that time, driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-27/8292 drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tempo and caused the accident. As a result of which - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4841 MFA No. 20092 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20093 of 2012 both the petitioners sustained grievous injuries. They took necessary treatment by spending huge amount and they prayed to award just compensation. 4. The owner of the vehicle appeared before the Tribunal and denied the contention of the claim petitioners and contended that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation. 5. Respondent No.2 denied the contention of the claim petitioners and it is further stated that the said vehicle was not insured with respondent No.2. Its liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and holding of valid driving licence by the driver of offending vehicle. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petitions. 6. Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. The claimants examined three witnesses as PWs.1 to PW3 and got marked 19 documents as per - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4841 MFA No. 20092 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20093 of 2012 Exs.P1 to P19. The respondents have not led any oral or documentary evidence. 8. After hearing both the parties; appreciating pleadings and evidences, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award, partly allowed the claim petitions and directed the respondent/insurer to pay the said amount of compensation to the claimants with a liability to recover from the owner of the vehicle. 9. Respondent No.2-insurer filed these appeals on the ground that the offending vehicle was not insured with the respondent No.2. Therefore they are not liable to satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. The only question that arises for determination in these appeals are (i) Whether the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2? (ii) What order? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4841 MFA No. 20092 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20093 of 2012 11. The finding on above question is in the Negative for the following reasons. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that in the written statement, respondent No.2 had taken the contention that the said vehicle was not insured with respondent No.2. In the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2, it was suggested to them that respondent No.2 was not responsible to pay compensation as respondent No.1 has not insured the said offending vehicle with respondent No.2 and claimant or owner of the vehicle have not produced copy of policy or furnished policy particulars. Therefore there are no materials to prove that offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. Hence respondent No.2 is not at all liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal on the basis of assumption and presumption ordered the respondent No.2 to pay compensation and given liberty to recover it from owner of vehicle. In the absence of policy of insurance such orders shall not be passed. He further contends that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4841 MFA No. 20092 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20093 of 2012 Tribunal in the impugned order at paragraph No.18 has wrongly noted that “there is no dispute that respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.” In fact the said fact is serious disputed by the respondent. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment reported in ILR 1997 KAR 1061 in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.N.S.Devaraja and Others and another judgment in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.Chikkegowda & Ors. reported in ILR 1997 KAR 1980. He further contends that in the case of N.S.Devaraja referred above, facts and circumstances of the present case are similar. In that case it is held that unless owner or claimants furnish particulars of policy of the insurance, the respondent- insurer cannot be made liable to pay compensation only on the ground that it has not denied said facts in the cross-examination. With these reasons prayed to allow the appeal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4841 MFA No. 20092 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20093 of 2012 14. The submission of the appellant is tenable. Claimant or owner of the vehicle did not produce copy of policy of insurance before the MACT. Even they did not furnish policy particulars of the offending vehicle. These appeals are pending for last 13 years. Both claimant and owner of offending vehicle did not produce particulars of policy of insurance of offending vehicle. Hence adverse inference shall be drawn. If there is no policy of insurance, the question of making the appellant liable to pay compensation or indemnify owner of the vehicle does not arise that offending vehicle was not insured with respondent No.2. Under the circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability on the respondent No.2- insurer is incorrect. Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation amount or indemnity respondent No.1. 15. In the above referred judgments, the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that unless vehicle was insured, insurance company shall not be made responsible to pay compensation. Liability of insurer - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4841 MFA No. 20092 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20093 of 2012 arises only on the basis of policy of insurance. Since there is no policy of insurance on the offending vehicle, respondent No.2-insurer (appellant) is not liable to indemnify the owner. Therefore the impugned judgment needs to be modified, fastening liability on the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation. Accordingly the above said question is answered in the negative and I pass the following: ORDER i. Appeals are allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment dated 22.03.2011 in MVC No.201/2006 and MVC No.202/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanagal is modified. iii. Respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay compensation. iv. Respondent No.2 is absolved from its liability to pay compensation, as ordered by the Tribunal. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4841 MFA No. 20092 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20093 of 2012 v. The findings of the Tribunal in other respect are not disturbed. vi. Send back TCR along with copy of this order to Tribunal. vii. Registry is directed to refund whatever the amount deposited by the appellant, on due acknowledgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4