- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11624 MFA No. 25393 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. 25393 OF 2012 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, BALLARI, HEREIN REP BY NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR THIRD PARTY HUB OFFICE, SRINATH COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580029, REP BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADV) AND: 1. HONNURAPPA S/O KURI RUDRAPPA AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: SHEPHERD, R/O. GUGGARAHATTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: BALLARI. 2. YERRISWAMY S/O NAGAPPA AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY R/O. 1ST GATE, NEAR STADIUM, CHOWDI BHATTI AREA, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.A. KARIGANNAVAR, ADV FOR R1, SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 11-07-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.603/2010 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT, BALLARI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,26,000/- 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, 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 16:37:07 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11624 MFA No. 25393 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 11.07.2012 passed in MVC No.603/2010 by the learned III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballari. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 16.12.2008, at about 10.30 a.m. on Bengaluru-Ballari road, near the police firing range cross, the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-06/3766 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, and ran the lorry over 42 sheeps causing death of the sheeps. The petitioner filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of 42 sheeps. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11624 MFA No. 25393 of 2012 4. The driver and the owner of the offending vehicle appeared through the counsel, but did not file any statement of objections before the tribunal. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the policy of the said vehicle was in force subject to certain conditions as enumerated therein. It is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioner to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, and marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. Conversely, on the other hand, an official of the Insurance - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11624 MFA No. 25393 of 2012 Company was examined as R.W.1, and marked 1 document as Ex.R1. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 11.07.2012 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,26,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization, and directed Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. 9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.603/2010, has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal committed a grave error and illegality in saddling the liability on the Insurance Company - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11624 MFA No. 25393 of 2012 to pay the entire compensation amount towards the loss of sheep. He submits that the policy is a ‘Liability Only’ policy. He submits that the owner has not paid any additional premium for a wider cover regarding third party property damage and that the limit of liability of the Insurance Company is clearly stated therein, that is to be Rs.6,000/- regarding the third-party property damage. He also submits that the provisions of Section 147(2)(b) of the Act does not cover the loss of property in the form of sheep. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Insurance Company has not raised this contention in the statement of objections. He submits that the Insurance Company for the first time has raised this contention in this appeal. He submits that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11624 MFA No. 25393 of 2012 13. Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point, that would arise for my consideration is regarding the liability. 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and also the death of 42 sheeps. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner has produced a charge sheet marked as Ex. P-2 filed against the driver of the Lorry. Regarding Liability: 16. Though, the Insurance Company has filed a statement of objections, however, it has not taken the grounds that are urged in the appeal memorandum. It is a settled position of law that, in an appeal, the party cannot urge the new facts. From the perusal of the pleadings of the Insurance Company, the insurance company has not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11624 MFA No. 25393 of 2012 pleaded that the petitioner had taken a ‘liability only policy’ and had not paid an additional premium. 17. In this regard, I would like to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MODERN INSULATORS LTD, VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 734, wherein, it is held as follows: “It is settled position of law that in an appeal the parties cannot urge new facts. From the pleadings of the respondent before the State Commission it is found that respondent pleaded that the property damaged was not covered under the insurance policy. This plea was given a go by before the National Commission and a new plea was taken up in the grounds of appeal that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated by the appellant by using used kiln furniture. The National Commission accepted this new ground and allowed the appeal, which in our opinion is not sustainable in law.” 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CHANDRAKANTA TIWARI VS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 7 SCC 386, held as follows: “Coming to the argument based on the maximum liability being Rs.1 lakh, this argument was never taken before in all the courts below, as a result of which, we do - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11624 MFA No. 25393 of 2012 not allow the insurance company to take up the point for the first time before us at this stage.” 19. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Insurance Company has not taken such a contention before the Tribunal, and raised this point for the first time before this court in this appeal, which is not permissible. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned judgment and award. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 11.07.2012 passed in MVC No.603/2010 by the learned III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballari, is hereby confirmed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11624 MFA No. 25393 of 2012 iii) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8