- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30197 MFA No. 2235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 823 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2235 OF 2020 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 823 OF 2020 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 2235/2020 BETWEEN: LEGAL MANAGER HDFC ERGO GIC. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, NO.25/1, BUILDING NO.2 SHANKARNARAYANA BUILDING M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUNDAR M S/O MONTA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RAKSHADI COFFE ESTATE WRITER HANUBALU, OSSURU VILLAGE SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 205 2. AMJAD KHAN S/O MEHBOOB KHAN NO.15, INFRONT OF BASAVARAJENDRA HIGH SCHOOL, PENSION Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30197 MFA No. 2235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 823 of 2020 MAHOLLA, HASSAN POST HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 [VC]; VIDE ORDER DTD.10.04.2023 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.402/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, SAKALESHPUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,17,714/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 823/2020 BETWEEN: SUNDAR M S/O MONTA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT RAKSHADI COFFE ESTATE WRITE HANUBALU, OSSURU VILLAGE SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 205 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE [VC]) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30197 MFA No. 2235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 823 of 2020 AND: 1. AMJAD KHAN S/O MEHBOOB KHAN NO.15, INFRONT OF BASAVARAJENDRA HIGH SCHOOL, PENSION MAHOLLA, HASSAN POST HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 2. THE ORIGINAL MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.25/1, SHANKARA NARAYANA BUILDING NO.2, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DTD.10.10.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.402/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, SAKALESHPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30197 MFA No. 2235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 823 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the arguments of both sides. In view of the rival submissions of both sides, for deciding this appeal, certain factual aspects are necessary for writing this judgment. 2. The petitioner by name Sundar M., S/o Monta, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of he suffering accidental injuries in a road traffic accident that took place on 21.01.2014 at 12.30 p.m. when he was proceeding on his Spendar plus motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-17-W-2361 as a rider. It is his case that, when he was proceeding towards Anemahal, Hanbal road, Sakleshpura Taluk, at the same time, a driver of a Goods Ape Auto, bearing registration No.KA-45- 2951, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to his motorcycle. Because of this impact, he sustained grievous injuries and was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Sakaleshpura and thereafter, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30197 MFA No. 2235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 823 of 2020 after first aid, he was shifted to Wenlock hospital, Mangalore. It is his case that, both the respondents arrayed in the petition are liable to pay the compensation as respondent No. 1 is the owner and respondent No. 2 is the insurer of the said vehicle. 3. Respondent No. 2 appeared before the tribunal and contested the petition, denying the entire assertions made in the petition. It is contended that, the insurance policy in respect of said offending Ape Auto was not in force as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and it was prayed by respondent No.2 to dismiss the petition, whereas respondent No.1 has not contested the petition by filing objection statement. 4. The learned tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, he himself entered the witness box as PW1 and also examined Dr. Rathnakar Kini as PW2. Got marked Exs. P1 to P9 and closed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30197 MFA No. 2235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 823 of 2020 petitioner's evidence. To rebut the evidence of the petitioner, one Madhumathi Hegde, the official of respondent No. 2, entered the witness box as RW1, through her Exs. R1 and R2 are marked, and even Exs. C1 to C4 are also marked on behalf of the Court. 5. The learned tribunal, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence placed on record, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and held that, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.2,17,714/- together with interest @ 9% per annum and it is held that, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount under law of Indemnity. This is how, now the appellant-insurance company is in appeal in this MFA No. 2235/2020. Whereas, the petitioner also has preferred an appeal in MFA.No.823/2020 seeking enhancement of the compensation, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal, vide judgment dated 27.11.2019 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30197 MFA No. 2235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 823 of 2020 in MVC.No.402/2015. As both these appeals are arising out of the same judgment, with consent of both sides, both these appeals are taken up together. 6. Sri. B.Pradeep, learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company submits that, in respect of the Goods Ape Auto bearing registration No.KA-45-2951 covering the risk from 21.01.2014 at about 17.30 hrs to 20.01.2015, it is admitted. He submits that, the accident took place on 21.01.2014 at 12.30 p.m. and during that period the insurance policy was not in force. The learned tribunal has failed to consider the said aspect, though brought on record, and has wrongly fastened liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation amount. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that, as per the instructions received by him, the agent of the appellant-insurance company has collected the premium amount by way of cheque on 17.01.2014 and the agent has presented the same. Therefore, he submits that, as the owner has - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30197 MFA No. 2235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 823 of 2020 already paid the premium amount for renewal of the insurance policy well within the expiration of the earlier insurance policy; therefore, the appellant cannot question the validity of the insurance policy in respect of the said offending Ape Auto vehicle. 8. To this submission, the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that, as it is submitted that, on 17.01.2014 the premium amount was collected by the agent of the appellant - insurance company, then the appellant - insurance company has to examine the said agent so as to prove that, when the said cheque was deposited with the insurance company and when the cheque was encashed. Unless this fact is proved, the appellant - insurance company would not admit the liability. Therefore, it is fairly submitted by the counsel for the appellant that, this appeal be remanded by setting aside the impugned judgment by giving an opportunity to the appellant-insurance company to lead - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30197 MFA No. 2235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 823 of 2020 evidence of the agent who has collected the cheque and deposited the same in the appellant company. 9. To this submission the counsel for respondent No. 1 also concedes. He submits that, as the liabilities are fastened on the insurance company and now denying the same, therefore it is very difficult for the petitioner to recover the same from the owner. If the matter is remanded, then an opportunity will be given to the petitioner to cross-examine the said agent, who is going to be examined by the appellant - insurance company. 10. In view of this fair submission of both sides, as it is the specific case of the appellant that, as on the date of the accident, the insurance policy was not in force and it is the case of the owner of the said vehicle that, he had already paid the premium amount on 17.01.2014 by way of cheque to the agent, unless the said agent is examined to prove the liability, the liability cannot be fastened on the appellant-insurance company. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30197 MFA No. 2235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 823 of 2020 11. It is also submitted that, the appellant-insurance company intends to summon the owner of the said offending vehicle. The insurance company is at liberty to summon the agent and also the owner of the said offending vehicle before the trial Court and examine them. 12. In view of remand of this case, as the petitioner also has preferred an appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation, and as the appellant also has made out some grounds in seeking enhancement of the compensation, it is just and proper to set aside the impugned judgment in both the appeals and the matter is required to be remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 13. Resultantly, pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal in MFA No. 2235/2020 is allowed. (ii) The appeal in MFA. No. 823/2020 is disposed of. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30197 MFA No. 2235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 823 of 2020 (iii) The judgment and award dated 27.11.2019 passed in MVC.No.402/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Sakaleshpur, is hereby set aside. (iv) The matter is remanded to the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Sakaleshpur, with a direction to permit both the parties to lead further evidence and decide the appeal afresh with regard to the entitlement of compensation as well as liability. (v) Registry is directed to refund the deposited amount made by the appellant in MFA. No. 2235/2020 digitally forthwith. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20