- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3929 MFA No. 21528 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.21528 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBLI, INSURER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-27/L-2411 POLICY NO.00195543 VALID FROM 30.10.2005 TO 29.10.2006 NOW REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. MOHAMMED JAFAR S/O. HUSAINSAB DODDAMANI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAREGAL, TQ: HANGAL, NOW, AT RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. MAKABOOLBASHA S/O. HUSSAINSAB HEBBAL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NELOGAL VILLAGE, HAVERI, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI, OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-27/L-2411. …RESPONDENTS (R1-NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT; R2 – NOTICE SERVED.) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3929 MFA No. 21528 of 2012 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.01.2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.383/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, RANEBENNUR, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 06.01.2012, passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Ranebennur, in MVC No.383/2006, on the ground that respondent No.2 who was owner and driving the motorcycle did not have valid and effective driving licence to drive the motorcycle. 2. Heard the arguments and perused the material placed before the Court. 3. The claimant was pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing No.KA-27/L-2411 and respondent No.2 was riding the said motorcycle, also he was owner of the motorcycle and met with accident and the claimant sustained injuries. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3929 MFA No. 21528 of 2012 The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.95,800/-. The tribunal has fastened liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that the rider of the motorcycle had only learners licence, but was not having driving licence and while riding the motorcycle, there was no instructor on the pillion who was holding driving licence. Hence there is fundamental violation of conditions of policy. Hence, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents justified the judgment and award passed by the tribunal. 6. There is no evidence before the tribunal that the claimant being pillion rider was instructing respondent No.2 rider of the motorcycle by holding driving licence. The claimant being pillion rider, if he could be construed as an instructor, then he should have driving licence, but there is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3929 MFA No. 21528 of 2012 no driving licence. Admittedly respondent No.2 who was driving the motorcycle was holding only learners licence. 7. When a person who is holding only learners licence while riding the motorcycle, then it is compulsory that the pillion must be instructor who is holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, in view of the admitted fact that respondent No.2 was holding only learners licence and the claimant being pillion rider did not have driving licence. Therefore there is violation of conditions of policy is proved. Hence the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation. The owner alone shall pay compensation. 8. The insurance company is able to establish the defence as per sub-section (2) of section 149 of M.V.Act. However, the claimant is a third party to the motorcycle. Hence as per sub-section (1), (5) and (7) of section 149 of the M.V.Act, and also as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of PAPPU AND OTHERS Vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208; NATIONAL - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3929 MFA No. 21528 of 2012 INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297; and also as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. YELLAVVA AND ANOTHER reported in 2020 ACJ 2560, the insurance company shall satisfy the claim at the first instance to the claimant and then recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. However, the insurance company is at liberty to file execution petition before the jurisdictional executing Court as against the owner of the offending vehicle and may seek attachment of movables or immovable properties or both, till recovery is made and also the recovery process can be as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. NANJAPPAN AND OTHERS, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 952. 9. Therefore, the insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment at the first instance and then recover it from the owner of offending - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3929 MFA No. 21528 of 2012 vehicle as discussed above. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 06.01.2012, passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Ranebennur, in MVC No.383/2006, is modified holding that the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. iii) The liability to pay compensation fastened on the appellant insurance company is set aside. iv) However, the insurance company shall satisfy the claim at the first instance to the claimant and then recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. v) The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3929 MFA No. 21528 of 2012 vi) The insurance company is at liberty to file execution petition before the jurisdictional executing Court as against the owner of the offending vehicle and may seek attachment of movables or immovable properties or both, till recovery is made and also the recovery process can be as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanjappan and others, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 952. vii) Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment and award to the tribunal. viii) No order as to costs. ix) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK/ CT: UMD. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36