- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3047 MFA No. 24711 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24711 OF 2012 (MV-D) BETWEEN: M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KESHWAPURN NK COMPLEX, HUBLI, REPRESENTED BY IT’S ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-29. …APPELLANT (BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GANGAVVA W/O. HONAPPA @ TIKARAPPA KALLADUNDANNAVAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: HAVANUR, TQ: DIST: HAVERI. 2. KANAPPA S/O. BASAPPA BANNIMATTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS/PRIVATE DRIVER, R/O: HAVANUR, TQ: DIST: HAVERI. (OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-27/S-8043) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16-08-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1267/2011 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE (FAST TRACK) AND MEMBER, MACT, HAVERI, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3047 MFA No. 24711 of 2012 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 16.08.2012, passed by the District Judge (Fast Track) and MACT, Haveri, so far as an order of pay and recovery is made. 2. Having sustained injuries at the time of accident, upon application filed by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,17,928/- by directing respondent No.2 to pay the amount to the claimant at first instance then recover from the owner of the motorcycle on the reason that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding driving license to ride motorcycle. 3. It is proved from the evidence on record especially from Ex.P-8-Chargesheet that the rider of the motorcycle was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 3 and 181 of MV Act. Therefore, it is proved - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3047 MFA No. 24711 of 2012 that the rider of the motorcycle did not have driving license to ride the motorcycle. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in exonerating the insurance company but order of pay and recovery is made is correct which is as per principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of PAPPU AND OTHERS Vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208; NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297; and also as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. YELLAVVA AND ANOTHER reported in 2020 ACJ 2560, the insurance company shall satisfy the claim at the first instance to the claimant and then recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. However, the insurance company is at liberty to file execution petition before the jurisdictional executing Court as against the owner of the offending vehicle and may seek attachment of movables or immovable properties or both, till recovery is made and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3047 MFA No. 24711 of 2012 also the recovery process can be as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. NANJAPPAN AND OTHERS, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 952. 4. It is clarified that the insurance company shall pay the amount at first instance then recover it from the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/S- 8043 as per law. The Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.3,70,928/-. 5. It is another submission made by the counsel for the appellant that the claimant being the wife is the only dependent on the deceased. Therefore, 50% of income ought to have been deducted towards personal and living expenses. This argument cannot be accepted for the reason that the deceased is a married person and claimant is wife. Therefore, when the deceased was having responsibility of maintaining the family, though the defendant is wife, therefore, the contribution towards maintaining family is more. Therefore, the Tribunal is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3047 MFA No. 24711 of 2012 correct in making deduction of 1/3rd of the income towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, on quantum also there is no need to make interference. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42