- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13486 MFA No. 100526 of 2014 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. 100526 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVAPPA YALLAPPA HAKKALADAVAR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE, R/O. MALAKANAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B S SANGATI, ADV) AND: 1. MANJUNATH CHIDANAND ARAWAL AGE: 58, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KA-28/9278, R/O UKKALI, TQ: BASAVANABAGEWADI, DIST: BIJAPUR. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O NO.1, KHENY BUILDING 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE, R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. ENKEY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KA-28/9278, POLICY NO.2261770 2262131 VALID FROM 7-11-05 TO 8-11-06 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.N.RAICHUR, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.27 11:23:29 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13486 MFA No. 100526 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:28.09.2013, PASSED IN MVC. NO.352/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT., DHARWAD SITTING AT KALGHATAGI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. 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) 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and award dated 28.09.2013 passed in M.V.C. No.352 of 2006 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Dharwad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 14.03.2006, the petitioner along with anther was waiting for the bus. At that time, a Mini door vehicle baring registration No.KA-28/9278 came to the spot - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13486 MFA No. 100526 of 2014 where the petitioner was standing by the side of the road and the driver of the vehicle stopped the vehicle and called the petitioner to travel in his vehicle. The petitioner was having luggage and the said luggage was loaded to the vehicle. The petitioner travelled as an authorized paid passenger. At that time, the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle toppled down. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. Notice was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle. Despite service of notice, he remained unrepresented. Hence, he was placed ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13486 MFA No. 100526 of 2014 petition and contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident. There is a breach of policy condition. 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 PW-1 and marked 10 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-10. 8. In rebuttal, the officer of the insurance company was examined as RW-1 and marked two documents as Exhibits R-1 and R-2. 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with cost and awarded compensation of ₹88,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13486 MFA No. 100526 of 2014 from respondent No.1, i.e., owner of the vehicle in question, and dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company. 10. The petitioner aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and the liability has filed this appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and he submits that if the petitioner was traveling along with the goods, there was no violation of policy condition. The Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability only on the owner of the offending vehicle. The aspect that the petitioner was travelling along with his goods was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13486 MFA No. 100526 of 2014 13. He further submits that even if there is violation of policy conditions, the Tribunal should have directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner. 14. To buttress his argument, he relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Yallavva1. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the petitioner was traveling as a paid passenger, as such, there is violation of a policy condition. He submits that the car was insured as a private car and not as a commercial car. There is a breach of policy conditions. The Tribunal while holding that there was a breach of policy conditions 1 ILR 2020 KAR 2239 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13486 MFA No. 100526 of 2014 has rightly dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company. He submits that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 16. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 17. The points that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation. 18. There is no dispute regarding to the occurrence of accident and the petitioner having sustained the grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. Reg. the Points for consideration: 19. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner has produced a copy of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13486 MFA No. 100526 of 2014 charge sheet. The Tribunal considering the charge sheet has rightly recorded its finding that the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. 20. The Insurance Company has taken a specific defence in the Statement of Objections that the petitioner was travelling as the paid passenger in the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was a private car and that the policy was registered under the private car scheme and not under the commercial car. Thus, there is a violation of the policy conditions. 21. On the other hand, the petitioner contended that he was travelling along with the goods and to substantiate the contention of the petitioner, he has not examined any eyewitness and also the driver of the offending vehicle to establish that he was travelling along with the goods. Thus, the burden was on the petitioner to establish that he was - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13486 MFA No. 100526 of 2014 travelling along with the goods, which was not discharged by him by adducing cogent evidence. Thus, the petitioner has failed to establish that he was traveling along with the goods. 22. Further, from the perusal of the charge sheet, it discloses that the police have not seized the alleged goods, as contended by the petitioner in the claim petition. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the owner has committed a breach of policy conditions and rightly dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company. 23. Admittedly, as of the date of accident, the vehicle was insured by the insurance company and there was a violation of policy conditions. The insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13486 MFA No. 100526 of 2014 24. The said view is supported by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Yallavva (referred supra). 25. The Tribunal considering the medical records has held that the petitioner has suffered a disability of 5%. The petitioner has not examined the doctor to prove the disability. 26. The Tribunal considering the disability certificate issued by the doctor has taken the disability at 5%, which, in my considered view, is just and proper. 27. Further, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income at ₹4,000/- and rightly awarded a compensation of ₹88,800/-. 28. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any grounds to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13486 MFA No. 100526 of 2014 29. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 28.09.2013 passed in M.V.C. No.352 of 2006 by the Tribunal is hereby modified. (iii) The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest, at first instance and then proceed to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, in accordance with law. (iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12