- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11622 MFA No. 25139 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. 25139 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, HUBLI-29 (INSURER OF MARUTI CAR BEARING REG NO.KA-16/M-9996) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADV) AND: 1. NAGRAJ S/O UJJANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: PHOTOGRAPHER AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOD, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. DR. INDUDHAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEDICAL SERVICE R/O. NEAR KSFC, DIST: CHITRADURGA (OWNER OF MARUTI CAR BEARING REG NO.KA-16/M-9996). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.H PATIL, ADV FOR R1, SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30-07-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.108/2011 (OLD NO.281/2009) ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.98,000/-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 16:36:47 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11622 MFA No. 25139 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 30.07.2012 passed in MVC No.108/2011 (Old No. 281/2009) by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 28.08.2007, at about 08:00 AM, the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-31/5091 from Kod village to Ranebennur. At that time, one Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.KA-16/M-9996 came from Ranebennur side, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation for the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11622 MFA No. 25139 of 2012 injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. It is contended that, the petitioner incurred a huge medical expenses. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. The owner of the Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.KA- 16/M-9996 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 driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. It is contended that the 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 petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, and marked 6 documents as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11622 MFA No. 25139 of 2012 Exs.P1 to P6. Conversely, the official of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 30.07.2012 and awarded a compensation of Rs.98,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realisation, and held that the owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.108/2011, 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11622 MFA No. 25139 of 2012 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. There is a breach of the policy conditions. The owner entrusted the vehicle to a person who did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner supports the impugned judgment and award. He submits that the burden is on the Insurance Company to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The Insurance Company did not discharge its burden. 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:11622 MFA No. 25139 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 that the petitioner sustained the injuries in the 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 sheet marked as Ex.P5 which is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Regarding Liability: 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 Insurance Company neither examined the RTO nor has taken any steps against the owner of the offending vehicle to secure - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11622 MFA No. 25139 of 2012 the driving license. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not issued any notice to the owner of the offending vehicle to produce the driving license. The burden is on the Insurance Company to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The Insurance Company has failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record has recorded its finding in paragraph 13, which reads as follows: “As per Ex.R.1 on the date of accident the policy was in force, Respondent no.1 is the owner/ insured and respondent no.2 is the insurer of the vehicle. The respondent no.2 has contended that the respondent no.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy so he is not liable to indemnify respondent no.1 as the driver who had no valid DL. However except the allegations the respondent no.2 has not placed any materials in support of its defenses and there are no reasons to disbelieve the version of the petitioner. Respondent no.2 examined himself as RW.1 and marked Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 authority letter and policy and on perusing the Policy the vehicle belongs respondent no.1 was insured with respondent no.2 and was in force at the time of accident and covered the risk. Hence, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11622 MFA No. 25139 of 2012 petitioner has proved the accident in question by oral and documentary evidence and accordingly, respondent no.1 to 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Hence, I answer No.3 partly in Affirmative.” 17. The Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on both, the owner of the offending vehicle, and the Insurance Company. 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 30.07.2012 passed in MVC No.108/2011 (Old No. 281/2009) by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur, is hereby confirmed. 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