- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7612 MFA No. 22991 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22991 OF 2012 (MV-D) BETWEEN: SHRI. PARASHURAM DEVAPPA HALAGEKAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SAI NIVAS, BHAVANI NAGAR, MANDOLLI ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELGAUM, TQ: AND DIST: BELGAUM. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1A. SHRI. PEERAJI MALLU GORAL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SMT. GANGUBAI W/O. PEERAJI GORAL, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MANDOLLI, TQ: AND DIST: BELGAUM. 1B. SHRI. RAJU PEERAJI GORAL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: MANDOLLI, TQ: AND DIST: BELGAUM. 1C. ARUN D/O. PEERAJI GORAL, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: MANDOLLI, TQ: AND DIST: BELGAUM. 1D. KRANTI D/O. PEERAJI GORAL, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: MANDOLLI, TQ: AND DIST: BELGAUM. 1E. PRIYANKA D/O. PEERAJI GORAL, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: MANDOLLI, TQ: AND DIST: BELGAUM. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7612 MFA No. 22991 of 2012 2. SHRI YALLAPPA KALLAPPA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.246, PATIL GALLI, KHADARWADI, BELGAUM, TQ: AND DIST: BELGAUM. 3. THE MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIYO GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED, A/2, 1ST FLOOR, RELIANCE HOUSE SIDE TO PAPTISTA ROAD, PAJIFONT, MARGO, GOA. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRAGOUD S. SANGANNAVAAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 29.02.2012 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.2713/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV, AND MACT, BELGAUM. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellant/owner of auto rickshaw, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 29.02.2012, passed in MVC No.2713/2007, on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV and MACT, Belgaum (for short, ‘Tribunal’), on the ground that he was not the owner of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-22/7407 as on the date of accident. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7612 MFA No. 22991 of 2012 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 08.06.2007 at about 6.45 p.m., after finishing mason work, the claimant was proceeding towards CBT stop at Vaccine Depot, Tilakwadi, Belgaum. At that time, because of rain, he was standing under the tree side by road, at that time, the driver of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-22/7407 came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant. Due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Upon the claim petition filed by the claimants, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,81,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and fastened liability on respondent Nos.1 and 3 by exonerating the Insurance Company on the reason that no insurance policy was issued. 4. The learned counsel for appellant/respondent No.3 submitted that as on the date of accident he was not the owner of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-22/7407, but respondent No.1 is the owner of auto rickshaw. Further submitted that there was insurance policy coverage, hence the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7612 MFA No. 22991 of 2012 Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence, prays for allowing of the appeal. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Company has not at all issued insurance policy and the appellant and respondent No.1 have not produced any insurance policy of the said auto rickshaw. Therefore, there is no insurance policy of the said auto rickshaw. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. The appellant has taken contention that he was not the owner of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA- 22/7407. Then on perusal of Ex.R5-Xerox copy of Registration Certificate, which is standing in the name of respondent No.1, is of the year 1997, Ex.P19 is copy of Indemnity Bond, is executed by the appellant before the Trial Court, while getting release of auto rickshaw from the Trial Court in connection with the accident and Ex.P20 is statement of the appellant given before the police stating that he is the owner of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-22/7407 and Ex.P21 is copy of notice issued by the police to the appellant, mentioning the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7612 MFA No. 22991 of 2012 name of appellant as owner of auto rickshaw, to rebut these documentary evidence, the appellant has not produced any evidence to prove that he was not the owner of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-22/7407. When there is a rival claim of ownership of not owning the auto rickshaw, then the Tribunal has fastened liability both on the appellant and respondent No.1, on the reason that there is no insurance policy of auto rickshaw. 7. The respondent No.1 has produced a Xerox copy of insurance policy, but it is not marked with specific assertion made by Insurance Company that respondent No.1 not at all issued any insurance policy. 8. In this regard, some persons have made fraud on the Insurance Company and accordingly alleged the complaint before the police that some persons have fraudulently claimed to be agent of Insurance Company and were issuing insurance policy and also respondent No.1 had got issued paper publication fastening the public not to deal with the persons, who are fraudulently claiming to be the agent of Insurance Company. When this being the fact claimed by respondent No.1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7612 MFA No. 22991 of 2012 that the Insurance Company has not issued insurance policy, then it is burden either on the appellant or on respondent No.1 or on both to produce insurance policy, but has not been produced. When Insurance Company has specifically denied issuance of insurance policy, then it is burden either on the appellant or on respondent No.1 or on both to prove existence of insurance policy by producing the same before the Tribunal. But that has not been produced. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the appellant and respondent No.1 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence, in this regard, there is no merit found in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Insofar as rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum and the same is scaled down to 6% per annum, since this Court is consistently awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed in part. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7612 MFA No. 22991 of 2012 b) The judgment and award dated 29.02.2012, passed in MVC No.2713/2007, on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV and MACT, Belgaum, stands modified, holding that the claimants are entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount determined by the Tribunal. c) Send a copy of this judgment along with TCR to the Tribunal. d) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 59