- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23428-DB MFA No. 4431 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4431 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR KRISHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. L SREEKANTA RAO.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NARAYANASWAMY S/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO. 7, NARUVAMAKALAPALLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT 563135 2. LAKSHMAKKA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23428-DB MFA No. 4431 of 2024 R/AT NO. 7, NARUVAMAKALAPALLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT 563135 3. NANNE SAB SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SARDAR S/O LATE NANNE SAB NO.9-189, NIMNAPALI ROAD MADDANAPALLI CHITTOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 517325 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHOJARAJA., ADVOCATE) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.03.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.4730/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-24, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,21,100/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23428-DB MFA No. 4431 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. SHYAM PRASAD) This appeal is by an Insurer [the first respondent] in MVC No.4730/2017 on the file of the MACT and Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru [for short, ‘the 'Tribunal']. The Tribunal has awarded to the first and the second respondents [the claimants] a total sum of Rs.15,21,100/- along with interest at 6% per annum holding that the Insurer is liable to pay this amount within two months but with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the Tractor [the third respondent]. The Insurer, in challenging the Tribunal's order and the award, does not dispute the quantum of compensation but is aggrieved by the Tribunal's finding that it must first pay the claimants and recover from the third respondent. 2. Sri L. Sreekanta Rao, the learned counsel for the Insurer, to vindicate the Insurer's grievance relies upon two propositions viz., that [i] the driver of the Tractor did not hold a driving licence - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23428-DB MFA No. 4431 of 2024 and [ii] the deceased was travelling on the engine of the tractor which is undisputed. In support of the first contention, Sri L. Sreekanta Rao submits: [i] that the Insurer has caused notice to the owner of the tractor to produce the details of the licence held by the driver of the tractor, but there is no response. [ii] that the Insurer has also summoned the concerned RTO [RW.1], and this witness has stated that he cannot definitely say whether the driver of the Tractor held any licence because the summons, which is issued to him to appear and depose in the proceedings, did not mention the driving licence number, and [iii] that if the driver held valid licence, such information would be available with the RTO, but the details are not available. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23428-DB MFA No. 4431 of 2024 Sri L. Sreekanta Rao next submits that the Police have filed the charge sheet against the owner under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 because the driver of the Tractor did not hold a driving licence. 3. The Tribunal has considered all the three grounds in opining that mere filing of the charge sheet could not be conclusive, nor would be the fact that notice is issued to the owner of the vehicle who has not furnished the details. The Tribunal has also rightly opined that the evidence of the concerned RTO [RW.1] would not inure to the Insurer's advantage because the witness was not called upon to state about the concerned driver holding a driving licence giving the details of the licence that the driver held. This Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly opined that in the circumstances the Insurer cannot be absolved of all its liability and the Insurer must pay - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23428-DB MFA No. 4431 of 2024 the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the Tractor. 4. On the second ground, this Court finds force in the submission on behalf of the claimants/respondents that in very similar circumstances, the Apex Court in V. Renganathan and another vs. Branch Manager, United India Insurer Limited and another1, has directed the Insurer to pay the claimants and recover the compensation paid from the owner of the tractor. Sri L. Sreekanta Rao is not able to dispute that in the case on hand before the Apex Court, the children of the deceased who fell from the mudguard of a tractor are awarded compensation on terms as aforesaid. 1 2023 ACJ 623 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23428-DB MFA No. 4431 of 2024 In the light of the afore, the appeal stands rejected. The amount in deposit shall be directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE NV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50