- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11614 MFA No. 24791 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24791 OF 2012 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, OPP. OLD BUS STAND, DOUBLE ROAD ARYA EDIGA COMPLEX, BELLARY, NOW REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580023 &APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV) AND: UDAYBHASKAR S/O LATE C.H. RAMAKRISHNA AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O. HOSKERA A CAMP, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.M. MALIPATIL, ADV) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02-07-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.216/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,12,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER : CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.12 16:35:05 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11614 MFA No. 24791 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and award dated 02.07.2012 passed in MVC No.216/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Gangavathi (for short 8the Tribunal9). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 25.06.2010, the deceased Sai Krishna, SriPadma, and others, had been to Tirupathi to attend the marriage of their relative. On, 27.06.2010, after attending the marriage, while they were returning to their native place in a car bearing No.KA-37/M-3910, the vehicle/ Car, driven by Ramakrishna, came near the Madanapalli3Molakala Cheruvu main road. At that time, Ramakrishna, who was driving the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11614 MFA No. 24791 of 2012 said car , drove the same at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and collided with a lorry bearing registration No. TN-67/F-9699. As a result, the deceased Saikrishna and Sripadma sustained grievous injuries, and they succumbed to the injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking a compensation for the death of Sripadma in the road traffic accident. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the claim petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties and there is a violation of policy conditions. It is contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective license as of the date of the accident. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11614 MFA No. 24791 of 2012 5. Although, two separate claim petitions were filed, they were clubbed together, and separate issues were framed by the Tribunal. 6. To substantiate the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner was examined as PW-1, and marked 11 documents as Ex.P1 to P11. In rebuttal, the Development Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW-1, and marked 1 document as Ex.R1. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed to claim petition in part vide judgment dated 02.07.2012 and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,12,000/- to the petitioner and held that the Insurance Company is liable to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest. 8. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Judgment and award passed in MVC No.216/2011, preferred this appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11614 MFA No. 24791 of 2012 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the owner of the vehicle has not been arrayed as a party in the claim petition. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable for the non-joinder of the necessary parties. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the connected claim petition i.e. MVC No.215/2011, the petitioner had not arrayed the owner of the vehicle as a party. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the common Judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.215/2011 had preferred an appeal in MFA No.24792/2012 before this Court. He submits that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11614 MFA No. 24791 of 2012 this Court vide Judgment dated 24.07.2013. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability. 13. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident, that the Sai Krishna and Sripadma have sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal was justified in recording the finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Though, the Insurance Company has raised a defense regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle has not been arrayed as a party. This contention was not raised by the Insurance Company in the statement of objections. The Insurance Company has raised this issue for the first time in the present appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11614 MFA No. 24791 of 2012 14. The entire scheme and structure of Chapters XI and XII the Act is that the claimant files a claim petition only against the owner and driver and the Tribunal issues notice to the insurer under Section 149(2) so that it can be made liable to pay the amount awarded against the insurer and if necessary, deny liability under the policy of insurance, on any of the grounds mentioned in section 149(2). If an insurer is only a noticee and not a party-respondent. 15. It can defend the claim only on the grounds mentioned in section 149(2) and not any of the other grounds relating to merits available to the insured respondent. This is the position even where the claim proceedings are initiated suo moto under Sections 149(7) and 158(6) of the Act, without any formal application by the claimants, as the insurer is only a noticee under section 149(2) of the Act. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11614 MFA No. 24791 of 2012 16. Section 170 of the Act does not contemplate an insurer making an application for impleadment. Nor does it contemplate the insurer, if he is already impleaded as a party-respondent by the claimants, making any application seeking permission to contest the matter on merits. Section 170 proceeds on the assumption that a claim petition is filed by the claimants, or is registered suo moto by the tribunal, with only the owner and driver of the vehicle as the respondents. It also proceeds on the basis that in such a proceeding, a statutory notice would have been issued by the tribunal to the insurer so that the insurer may know about its future liability in the claim petition and also resist the claim, on any of the grounds mentioned in section 149(2). 17. As observed, the Insurance Company did not raise the contention regarding non joinder of the necessary party before the Tribunal. As a result of which, this Court does not allow the Insurance Company to raise the issue for the first time before this Court at this stage. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11614 MFA No. 24791 of 2012 18. Further, in connected matter, the Insurance Company had challenged the common Judgment passed in MVC No.215/2011 in MFA No. 24792/2012. This Court dismissed the appeal vide Judgment dated 24.07.2013. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot take a different dual stand in the present appeal. 19. The decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd, Divisional Office-II, Mysore v. K Puttathayamma and Ors in MFA No. 8603/2006 disposed of on 10.12.2010, relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company do not apply to the case on hand. In the said case, the Insurance Company has raised the contention that the petition was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. However, admittedly, in the instant case, this Court has already confirmed the Judgment and award passed in the connected matter in MVC No.215/2011. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11614 MFA No. 24791 of 2012 20. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned Judgment. Hence, I do not find any error in impugned Judgment. Accordingly, I concur with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In view of the same, the point for consideration is answered accordingly. 21. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The Judgment and award dated 02.07.2012 passed in MVC No.216/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Gangavathi, is hereby confirmed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11614 MFA No. 24791 of 2012 (iii) The amount in deposit, if any, along with trial Court records, be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/-CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3