- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32675 MFA No. 7456 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7456 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO 44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO 44/45, 4TH FLOOR, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE 560025 BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H C VRUSHABHENDRAIAH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SAVITRAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 2. JYOTHI D/O LATE CHIKKE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. MADHUSUDHAN S/O LATE CHIKKE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1640, 7TH CROSS, 19TH MAIN, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, AVALAHALLI, MYSURE ROAD, BANGALORE 560026 Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32675 MFA No. 7456 of 2023 4. M/S CIVIL CORE PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NO.22, DOOR NO 244, GROUND FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, MUTTARAYASWAMY LAYOUT, SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE 560091 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P MAHADEVASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, V/O/D 22/1/25 NOTICE TO R4 IS H/S.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC.NO. 5693/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-17), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 10,48,080/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.5693/2021 dated 07.08.2023 by the XIX Addl. Judge and Member, MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, whereby the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount Rs.10,48,080/- and fixed the liability on the insurance company, the insurance company is before this Court. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 01.03.2021 at about 4.00 pm., the deceased was crossing the road from - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32675 MFA No. 7456 of 2023 Nandeeshwara Condiments towards Deepak stop NH-4 Tumkur Service road, at that time the driver of water tanker drove the same in a rash and negligent manner came in reverse manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result, he fell down and the rear wheel of the said water tanker ran over the head of the deceased and died on the spot. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had granted the compensation as per the table given below: SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Loss of dependency : Rs. 8,33,080/- 2. Loss of future prospects : Rs. - 3. Loss of consortium : Rs. 1,20,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection : Rs. 75,000/- 5. Funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000/- 6. Transport of dead body : Rs. 5,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 10,48,080/- 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company submits that they have examined the investigating officer. The driver of the offending vehicle is not having a valid driving licence. The owner of the vehicle having contested the matter, it is his duty to place the driving licence before the Court which he has not chosen to do and as per the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32675 MFA No. 7456 of 2023 evidence of the Investigating Officer, he is not having a valid driving licence. It is submitted that they have also examined the officer of the company. In those circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The claimants are the wife and two children. It is submitted that they are not dependent on the father. Hence, they cannot be treated as dependents and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50%. It is submitted that both on the liability as well as on the quantum of compensation, interference is required from this Court. Learned counsel had relied on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Yashodhara B. Shetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others.1 He had relied on para Nos.20 AND 21 which reads thus: “20. In the light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court and applying the same to the facts of this case, there can be no more dispute that the appellant did not discharge his initial burden of establishing that he had done everything within his power by engaging a licensed driver by name Shankar Poojary and placed the vehicle in question in his charge on 25.04.1998 and that he had no knowledge of one Shankar Kullal the cleaner having taken over the driving of the bus. In 1ILR 2007 KAR 4567 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32675 MFA No. 7456 of 2023 the absence of evidence to discharge the burden of proof of the appellant-insured, it cannot but be said that the MACT was fully justified in fastening the liability on the appellant-owner and absolving the Insurance Company of its liability to pay the compensation. 21. Learned Counsel for the appellant in M.F.A. No. 314/2006 Sri. Vishwajith Shetty was not able to point out to relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence over the disability, since admittedly, neither the claimant nor the Doctor was examined, and the sole witness examined was PW-1 the Power of Attorney Holder, as the claimant was busily engaged outside the country. In the absence of the evidence of the claimant and medical evidence of the Doctor the award of Rs. 47,000/- with interest at 6% cannot be said to be on the lower side not calling for interference. In the result, the appeals are without merit and are accordingly rejected.” Basing on this, the learned counsel submits that in the absence of evidence to discharge the burden of proof of the insured, MACT is not justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ claimants submits that the Tribunal has rightly considered and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32675 MFA No. 7456 of 2023 rightly granted the compensation. It is submitted that the charge sheet does not disclose that the driver of the vehicle is not having a valid driving license. In that case, the evidence of the Investigating Officer cannot be considered when he has not filed the charge sheet. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. First, coming to the aspect of liability, it is the case of the insurance company that there is no valid driving license to the driver of the offending vehicle and the owner who has contested has not placed any document before the Court with regard to the driving license. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, it is the duty of the owner to place the document and he cannot be absolved from the liability and he had relied on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Yashodhara B. Shetty & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. stated supra. It is submitted that the investigation officer is examined. In this case, the investigating officer has done the investigation and also filed the charge sheet. The charge sheet does not disclose that the driver of the offending vehicle is not having a valid driving license. In that case, having filed the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32675 MFA No. 7456 of 2023 charge sheet, he cannot give evidence before the Court contrary to the investigation made by him and the charge sheet filed by him. If it is the case of the insurance company that he is not having a valid driving licence, the burden lies on them. At the same time, it is the liability of the insured to place the copy of the license. Having contested the matter why the owner has not discharged his obligation by placing the same. In this case also the notice is served on the owner, but he has not turned up. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the principle of pay and recover will apply in this case and the insurance company shall pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 6. Then coming to the compensation, this Court has perused the award and the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is as per law and based on the facts of the case. In those circumstances, this Court do not find any reason to interfere. 7. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance company is partly allowed and the appellant/Insurance Company shall - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32675 MFA No. 7456 of 2023 pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. i) The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal. ii) The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iii) The appellant/Insurance Company shall pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. iv) The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount. v) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. vi) No costs. vii) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26