- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8551 MFA No. 102521 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102521 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: KUMARI KAVITA D/O SHIVANAND BELAGANTI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT AND COOLIE (NOW NIL), R/O: HEBBELLI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.S. YALIGAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. LAXMAN S/O VEERANAGOUDA YALABURGI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE, R/O: BENAKAWARI, TQ: HUNAGUND, NOW RESIDING AT: NANDIKESHWAR, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 201, (OWNER OF VEHICLE I.E., TOM-TOM BEARING REG. NO.KA-29/A-799). 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, FUTURE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR, KALABURGI LAND MARK, T.B. GIRL HIGH SCHOOL, DESHPANDE NAGAR, TQ: HUBBALLI-580 029, COVER NOTE NO.3899009 VALIDITY FROM 12/08/2009 TO 11/08/2010. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE AWARD DATED 24.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.221/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-VIII, BADAMI AND CLAIM AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.10,05,000/- WITH COSTS AND PROPER INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL THE REALIZATION OF AWARD AMOUNT AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.08.14 12:07:09 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8551 MFA No. 102521 of 2016 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 24.11.2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT-VIII, Badami (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.221/2010, seeking enhancement of compensation as well liability fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. The factum of accident, injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident are not in dispute in this case. 4. In the present case, from the medical evidence on record it is proved that the claimant had suffered the injuries on the head, knee and thumb. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8551 MFA No. 102521 of 2016 5. The tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of future earnings. 18,000 2. Medical expenses. 20,000 3. Food and nourishment. 6,000 4. Conveyance charges. 1,000 Total: 45,000 6. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the compensation awarded by tribunal is found to be just and proper. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. Therefore the judgment and award passed by the tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation is confirmed and is left unaltered. 7. Further, the claimant challenges the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability solely on the owner of the vehicle Tom-Tom Auto Rickshaw on the reason that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence and the vehicle lacked a valid permit at the time of the accident - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8551 MFA No. 102521 of 2016 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company from liability to pay compensation. It was contended that Ex.R1, which is an authorization letter regarding the driving licence particulars of the driver and it has validity period of licence. Therefore, there is conclusive evidence to establish that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company submitted that the claimant failed to prove that the driver was duly licenced and the vehicle was being plied with a valid permit, which amounts to breach of policy conditions. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly exonerated the insurance company from liability to pay compensation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8551 MFA No. 102521 of 2016 10. Heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the records. 11. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by both parties and perusal of the records and including observation made by the tribunal in paragraph No.17 of its judgment, it is evident that the claimant failed to establish that the driver possessed a valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Additionally, the Tom- Tom Auto Rickshaw was found to be plying without a valid permit, which constitutes breach of statutory and policy conditions. Although Ex.R1 is the authorization letter, it does not disclose the date of validity period of the driving licence. Therefore, there is no clear evidence to establish whether the driving licence was valid and in force as on the date of the accident. Hence, the Tribunal is justified in its finding at paragraph No.17 that the claimant failed to prove that the driver had valid driving licence and that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8551 MFA No. 102521 of 2016 vehicle had a valid permit. Consequently, the Tribunal rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from liability and held that there was no permit for the Tom-Tom Auto Rickshaw. REGARDING PAY AND RECOVERY 12. In the present case, the Tribunal observed that the driver of the Tom-Tom Auto Rickshaw has not possessed valid driving licence as per the evidence on record also correctly observed that the Tom-Tom Auto Rickshaw was found to be plying without a valid permit. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly fastened liability on the owner of the Tom-Tom Auto Rickshaw. Hence, as per Sub- section (2) of Section 149 of the MV Act, when the Insurance Company established the fact that the driver was not holding driving licence, then as per Sub-sections (1), (4), (7) of Section 149 of the Act, the Insurance Company as if the judgment debtor shall satisfy the claim in respect of third parties and then recover the same from the owner of the Tom-Tom Auto Rickshaw. Accordingly, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8551 MFA No. 102521 of 2016 the order of pay and recovery is made as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of PAPPU AND OTHERS Vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER1; NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS2 and also as per the full bench decision of this Court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. YELLAVVA AND ANOTHER3. Accordingly, an order of pay and recovery is made. 13. However, the insurance company is at liberty to file execution petition before the jurisdictional executing Court as against the owner of the offending vehicle and may seek attachment of movables or immovable properties or both, till recovery is made and also the recovery process can be as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. 1 (2018) 3 SCC 208 2 (2004) 3 SCC 297 3 2020 ACJ 2560 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8551 MFA No. 102521 of 2016 Nanjappan and others, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 952. 14. Therefore, the insurance company of the offending vehicle shall pay compensation to the claimant at the first instance and then recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. 15. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 24.11.2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT-VIII, Badami, in MVC No.221/2010, is modified to the extent of pay and recovery order only. iii) The insurance company shall deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8551 MFA No. 102521 of 2016 judgment at the first instance and then recover it from the owner of offending Tom Tom Auto Rickshaw. iv) The insurance company is at liberty to file execution petition before the jurisdictional executing Court as against the owner of the offending vehicle and may seek attachment of movables or immovable properties or both, till recovery is made and also the recovery process can be as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanjappan and others, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 952. v) The claimant is not entitle to interest for the delayed period of 162 days in filing the appeal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8551 MFA No. 102521 of 2016 vi) Rest of the observations and findings of the tribunal are left unaltered. vii) Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment and award to the tribunal. viii) No order as to costs. ix) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RHR/- CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 70