- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5562 MFA No. 22352 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22352 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: CHOLAMANDALAM, M. S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, "DARE HOUSE", 2ND FLOOR, NO.234, NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600001, NOW REPRSENTED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM, M. S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, UNIT NO.04, NINTH FLOOR, (LEVEL-06), "GOLDEN HEIGHTS" COMPLEX, 59TH "C" CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, RAJAJINAGAR, 4TH "M" BLOCK, BANGALORE-560010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJASAB S/O. DODDAFEERSAB HULMANI, AGE 60 YEARS, OCC: ARICULTURE. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5562 MFA No. 22352 of 2013 2. IBRAHIMSAB S/O. RAJASAB HULMANI, AGE 24 YEARS, OCC: ARICULTURE. 3. SAIFULLASAB S/O. RAJASAB HULMANI, AGE 21 YEARS, OCC: ARICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O.UKKUND VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 4. SRI. MAHESHAPPA S/O. BASAVANTAPPA MORALAD, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. UKKUND VILLAGE, TQ: RANIBENNUR, DT: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KANNUR, ADV. R1 & R2; NOTICE TO R3 & R4 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11-03-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.416/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, RANEBEENUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.7,22,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5562 MFA No. 22352 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. Respondent No.2/insurer of the offending auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-27/A-2504 challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 11.03.2013 passed in MVC No.416 of 2010 on the file Addl.MACT, Ranebennur. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The insurer challenged its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. In addition to that the appellant has also challenged the award on the ground that Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per month. 4. Heard the arguments of learned advocate for the appellant as well as respondent Nos.1 and 2. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5562 MFA No. 22352 of 2013 5. The fact of accident and death of Smt.Sakaramma w/o Rajasab Hulmani aged 45 years is not in dispute in the present appeal. It is true that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle, therefore he was charge sheeted under Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also the contention of appellant that owner of the vehicle violated the permit condition and carried additional passengers in the vehicle. In view of the said reasons insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner. 6. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bijapur Vs. Yallavva w/o Yamanappa Dharanakeri reported in 2020 (2) AKR 484, Full Bench of this Court held that in the event of any violation of the terms and conditions of policy of insurance, the insurer shall pay the said amount of compensation and it can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and on that count there is no need to set aside the impugned judgment and it is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5562 MFA No. 22352 of 2013 suffice if liberty is given to the insurer to recover the said amount of compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle, in an appropriate proceeding if it is able to show that owner had violated terms and conditions of policy of insurance. 7. 7. Admittedly claimant was unable to prove the income and hence Tribunal has assessed the compensation on the basis of national income. The Tribunal has taken income as Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence it may be corrected by taking income as Rs.5,000/- per month. 8. Perused the materials. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal had taken income of Rs.6,000/- per month. The matter is of the year 2011 and also much water is flown under the bridge and there is no need to re-consider the said finding of the Tribunal. Moreover in view of the law down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5562 MFA No. 22352 of 2013 (2017) 16 SCC 680 if compensation is re-considered, then whatever amount awarded by the Tribunal is much less. Considering these facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case to interfere in the findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is partly allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 11.03.2013 passed in MVC No.416 of 2010 on the file Addl.MACT, Ranebennur is modified in respect of liability. iii. The appellant/insurer shall pay the compensation to claimant and it is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, in an appropriate proceeding, if it is able to show that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5562 MFA No. 22352 of 2013 iv. Registry is directed to transmit whatever amount deposited by the appellant to the Tribunal. v. Send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2