- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480 MFA No. 21165 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21165 OF 2013 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO, LTD ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. REVAKKA W/O MAHESHAPPA KARENAGAPPANAVAR@ KARIYANNANAVAR, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O : HULIKATTI VILLAGE, TAL : RANEBENNUR. 2. SMT. KRISHNAVENI W/O P. SRIDHAR RAMCHANDRA, OWNER OF PREMIER PADMINI CAR NO. MH02/TI82, R/O NO.4, GANDHI STREET, PONDICHERRY. 3. SMT. KARIYAVVA NAGAPPA KARENAGAPPANAVAR @ KARIYANNANAVAR, AGE 81 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: SARVANDA VILLAGE, NOW AT KERIMALLAPUR, POST HONNATTI, TAL : RANEBENNUR. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER M/S. PREMIER CAR SALES LTD, SAKKA SATH CHOWK, OPP ROOM NO.5LBS MARGHAKURLA (WEST) MUMBAI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADV FOR R1, R3 IS SERVED, R2 & R4 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.27 11:23:33 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480 MFA No. 21165 of 2013 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:21-12-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.566/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,10,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER : 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 21.12.2012 passed in MVC No.566/2009 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Ranebennur. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 28.12.1994, at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased Maheshappa, and his friend were talking to each other on P.B.Road near Makanur Cross. At that time, the car bearing Reg.No.MH-02/T-182 came from Ranebennur side - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480 MFA No. 21165 of 2013 in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the deceased Maheshappa. Due to the said impact, the deceased Maheshappa sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries during the treatment. Hence, the legal representative of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming a compensation for the death of the deceased Maheshappa 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 absent, and was placed ex-parte. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that as of the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company, and the Insurance Company has not issued the policy regarding the offending vehicle. The driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480 MFA No. 21165 of 2013 of the accident. It is contended that there is no privity of contract between the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle. 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 her case, examined herself as P.W.1, examined one witness as P.W.2, and marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. Conversely, on the other hand, an official of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1, and marked 10 documents as Exs.R1 to R10. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 21.12.2012 and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization, held that the owner and the Insurance Company are jointly and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480 MFA No. 21165 of 2013 severally liable to pay the compensation amount, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount. 9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.556/2009, 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 there is no privity of contract between the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle. He submits that the Insurance Company has not issued any policy regarding the offending vehicle. The Tribunal without considering the said aspect has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. He also submits that the burden is on the petitioner to prove that the offending vehicle is insured with the Insurance - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480 MFA No. 21165 of 2013 Company. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VS CHIKKEGOWDA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 1997 KAR 1980. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner supports the impugned judgment and award, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 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 the death of the deceased Maheshappa in a road traffic accident. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480 MFA No. 21165 of 2013 sheet marked as Ex. P4. The Tribunal considering Ex.P4 has rightly recorded its finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Regarding Liability: 16. The petitioner contended that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. To prove the same, the petitioner has not furnished the particulars of the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company has filed a statement of objections contending that the offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company. This court in the case of CHIKKEGOWDA (SUPRA) held that, “under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 as well as 1988 the registering authority or the Police Officer is required to furnish the particulars of the vehicle involved in the accident, and as such, it is not as if the insurance particulars cannot be secured at all. When once the Insurance Company disputes its liability to indemnify the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480 MFA No. 21165 of 2013 liability of the owner of the vehicle on the ground that the insurance particulars are not given, it is for the petitioners or the owner of the vehicle to place material on record to indicate that the vehicle was insured on the relevant date. It is not for the Insurance Company to prove that the vehicle is not insured with them, and that it is either for the petitioners or the owner of the vehicle to prove that the vehicle was actually insured with the Insurance Company when the fact of insurance was disputed”. 17. In the instant case, neither the petitioner nor the owner of the offending vehicle furnished the particulars of the insurance of the offending vehicle. In the absence of the insurance particulars of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Admittedly, there is no privity of contract between the Insurance Company, and the owner of the offending vehicle to indemnify the third party. The said aspect was not adequately considered by the Tribunal, and committed an error in fastening the liability on the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480 MFA No. 21165 of 2013 Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount, as claimed by the petitioners. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal fastening liability on the Insurance Company is perverse, arbitrary and erroneous. In view of the above discussion, the point for consideration is answered accordingly, 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 21.12.2012 passed in MVC No.566/2009 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Ranebennur, is partly set aside as against the Insurance Company. iii) The claim petition against the insurance company is dismissed. iv) The owner of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480 MFA No. 21165 of 2013 amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. v) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. vi) The Tribunal records, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4