- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10243 MFA No. 22686 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22686 OF 2013 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI, RPTD. THROUGH ITS TP CLAIMS HUB, NO.3, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHAWAPUR, HUBBALLI -580023. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV) AND: 1. MALLANAGOUDA S/O NINGANAGOUDA GURANAGOUDAR, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC: NILL, R/O. ADARGUNCHI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SMT. GIRIJAVVA W/O MALLANAGOUDA GURANAGOUDAR, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ADARGUNCHI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. BABUSAB @ BABASAB S/O MALIKSAB NADAF AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NO.45, EKTA NAGAR, SHIVAMOGA COLONY, NEAR TAJ NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBBALLI. 4. HANIF S/O FAKRUSAB AMARGOL AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: RIDER OF MOTOR CYCLE, R/O. 2ND CROSS, SIDDESHWAR NAGAR, BEHIND SIDDAPPAJJAMATH, UNKAL, HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T.PATIL, ADV FOR R1 & R2 NOTICE TO R3 & R4 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:31-05-2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.277/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HUBLI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,37,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 13:01:36 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10243 MFA No. 22686 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 31.05.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.277/2011 by the learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Hubballi. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. One Ramanagouda S/o. Mallanagouda Gurunagoudar met with an accident on 20.11.2010, and sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash, and negligent riding of the rider of Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/R-4051. The rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased Ramanagouda. Due to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10243 MFA No. 22686 of 2013 said impact, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased Ramanagouda filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking a compensation due to the death of Ramanagouda in a road traffic accident. It is contended that the deceased Ramanagouda was doing mason work under contractors and engineers, and used to earn Rs.300/- per day i.e., Rs.9,000/- p.m. Hence, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. The Appellant- insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and it is contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. It is contended that the charge sheet is filed against the rider of the motorcycle for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Motor vehicles Act. It is also contended that there is a violation of policy conditions, and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, as prayed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10243 MFA No. 22686 of 2013 for, in the claim petition. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition, against the insurance company. 5. The rider of the motorcycle filed a statement of objections denying the claim petition averments. It is contended that he was not negligent in riding the motorcycle. It is contended that the motorcycle was insured with the insurance company as of the date of the accident, and the policy was in force. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the rider of the motorcycle. 6. The owner of the motorcycle filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the rider of the motorcycle. 7. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 8. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.2 was examined as PW-1, one witness was examined as PW-2, and 8 documents were marked as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10243 MFA No. 22686 of 2013 Exs.P-1 to P-8. The official of the respondent-insurance company was examined as RW-1, and the rider of the motorcycle was examined as RW-2, and marked 4 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-4. 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment and awarded dated 03.05.2013 and held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,37,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, and held that respondent Nos.1 (owner) and 2 (Insurance Company) and are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation with accrued interest. The insurance company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company, and the learned counsel for the petitioners. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10243 MFA No. 22686 of 2013 11. A Notice was issued to the respondents. Despite the service of the notice, the owner, and rider of the motorcycle remained unrepresented. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident and a charge sheet was filed against him for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the M.V. Act. She submits that the owner has entrusted the vehicle to the person who did not possess a valid and effective driving license to ride the offending Motor Cycle. She further submits that the tribunal has failed to consider that the rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle without a valid and effective driving license. She submits that there is a violation of policy conditions. Hence, she submits that the tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10243 MFA No. 22686 of 2013 13. Learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners submits that in the event this Court holds that there is a violation of policy conditions, and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, when the motorcycle was insured with the insurance company, the insurance company should be ordered to pay the compensation at the first Insurance Company and the same may be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dispose of the appeal. 14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 15. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability. Regarding liability: 16. There is no dispute that the deceased Ramanagouda met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries. The charge sheet produced at Ex.R-1 discloses that as of the date of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10243 MFA No. 22686 of 2013 accident, the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license. The insurance company has produced the driving license sheet marked as Ex.R-3, and a learners license marked as Ex.R-4. The learners licence-Ex.R-4 discloses that the rider of the motorcycle was possessing a learners license valid from 07.09.2009 to 06.03.2010. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 20.11.2010. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurance company, the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The said aspect has been overlooked by the Tribunal, and committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company. Admittedly, the motorcycle was insured with the insurance company, and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the motorcycle. Hence, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants awarded by the Tribunal, and recover the same from the rider, and owner of the motorcycle in accordance with law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10243 MFA No. 22686 of 2013 17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 31.05.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.277/2011 by the learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Hubballi is partly set aside. (iii) The claim petition against the appellant insurance company is dismissed. However, as the motorcycle was insured with the insurance company, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and recover the same from the rider and owner of the motorcycle in accordance with law. (iv) The amount in deposit and the records be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7