- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175 MFA No. 102484 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102484 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., E-8, EPIP RICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE NOW R/BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., LEGAL CELL, E-8, EPIP, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR-302022, RAJASTHAN. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. GOURAMMA W/O BHARAMAPPA BHANDARI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MOTEBENNUR, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI. 2. HONNAMMA D/O. BHARAMAPPA BHANDARI AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MOTEBENNUR, TQ: BYADAGI DIST: HAVERI. 3. HONNAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA BHANDARI AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O. MOTEBENNUR, TQ: BYADAGI DIST: HAVERI. 4. SRI. NEELAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA BHANDARI AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O. MOTEBENNUR, TQ: BYADAGI DIST: HAVERI. 5. SRI. MALATESH S/O. HEMAPPA TALAWAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. GUTTALA, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175 MFA No. 102484 of 2014 6. SRI. RAJAPPA MARALA S/O. GUDDAPPA AGE: 40YEARS, OCC: DRIVER R/O. HAVANUR, TQ & DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADV FOR R1 TO R4 & NOTICE TO R5 & R6 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:10.06.2014, PASSED IN MVC. NO.91/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & IT COURT & MEMBER, AMACT., BYADGI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.9,44,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI 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 10.06.2014 passed in MVC No.91/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge & IT Court & AMACT, Byadgi. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175 MFA No. 102484 of 2014 3. On 30.08.2010, at about 10.30 a.m. one Bharamappa was a pedestrian on the left side of the P.B. Road. At that time, the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-27/5949, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to Bharamappa. As a result, the Bharamappa sustained fatal injuries all over the body and died on the spot. Hence, the petitioners, are the legal representatives of the deceased Bharamappa, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation for the death of Bharamappa in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. A notice was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle. Despite the service of a notice, he remained unrepresented and was placed exparte. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175 MFA No. 102484 of 2014 as of the date of the accident. It is contended that the owner of the offending vehicle has entrusted the offending vehicle to an unauthorized person, who did not possess a valid and effective driving License. Thus, there is a breach of the policy conditions. 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 petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.2 was examined as P.W.1, and marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. Conversely, the official of the Insurance 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 10.06.2014, and awarded a compensation of Rs.9,44,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175 MFA No. 102484 of 2014 realization. It is held that the owner and insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount to the petitioners. 9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.91/2011, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. He submits that the owner of the offending vehicle had entrusted the offending vehicle to an unauthorized person. Thus, there is a breach of the policy conditions. The said aspect was not adequately considered by the Tribunal, and committed an error in fastening the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175 MFA No. 102484 of 2014 liability jointly and severally. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if this court comes to a conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, and there is a breach of policy conditions, this court may direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD BIJAPUR, BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER VS. YALLAVVA AND ANOTHER reported in 2020 (2) AKR 484. 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175 MFA No. 102484 of 2014 Regarding Liability: 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased Bharamappa in an accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners have produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P1, which is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/ Lorry. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1. 16. The Insurance Company has taken a specific defense in the statement of objections that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle are arrayed as parties to the claim petition. However, the owner remained - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175 MFA No. 102484 of 2014 unrepresented. The driver of the offending vehicle did not enter the witness box to establish that as of the date of the accident, he possessed a valid and effective driving license. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company was justified in submitting that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Thus, there is a breach of the policy conditions. The Tribunal has not properly considered this aspect, and committed an error in fastening the liability jointly and severally on the owner and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the petitioners against the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. 17. As of the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. As per the proposition of law laid down by Full Bench of this court in the case of YALLAVVA (SUPRA), it is the duty of the Insurance Company to satisfy the judgment and award against the person insured regarding third-party risks. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175 MFA No. 102484 of 2014 Therefore, the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation amount with accrued interest in the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal did not consider the said aspect, and committed an error in fastening the liability jointly and severally. Thus, the Insurance Company has made out a ground to set aside the judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal against the Insurance Company. In view of the same the point regarding liability is answered accordingly. 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 10.06.2014 passed in MVC No.91/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge & IT court & AMACT, Byadgi is partly set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175 MFA No. 102484 of 2014 iii) The claim petition against the Insurance Company is dismissed. iv) However, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law. v) 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.: 12