- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11125 MFA No. 23167 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23167 OF 2012 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SEETA SMRUTHI, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM, ISSUING OFFICE, MAIN ROAD, OPP: S.T. STAND, GADHINGLAJ. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. SUJATA YALLAPPA BHAJANTRI AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: CHIKODI, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SHRI. VINOD YALLAPPA BHAJANTRI AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: CHIKODI, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. 3. KUMAR AMAR YALLAPPA BHAJANTRI, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: CHIKODI, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. 4. SHRI. MALLAPPA LAGAMA AMATE, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KHAJAGUNATTI, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANKIT R. DESAI, ADV FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15-03-2012 PASSED IN MVC MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.09 12:05:21 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11125 MFA No. 23167 of 2012 NO.1730/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I, CHIKODI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,85,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% 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: 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 Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and award dated 15.03.2012 passed in MVC No.1730/2011 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Chikkodi, (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 20.04.2011, deceased Yallappa was standing by the side of road near Sindikut of Chikkodi, a tractor and a trailer bearing registration No.KA-23/T-8998 and KA-23/T- 8999, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11125 MFA No. 23167 of 2012 the said Yallappa. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners, being his legal representatives, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of Yallappa in the road traffic accident. Hence, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the claim made by the petitioners was exorbitant. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid and effective driving license and it was insured with the insurance company as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle. 4. The Insurance Company filed its statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contending that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11125 MFA No. 23167 of 2012 as of the date of the accident and there is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount as claimed by the petitioners. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 5. The petitioners, to substantiate their claim, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW-1 and marked 11 documents as Ex.P1 to P11. The Respondents have not adduced any oral evidence. However, they have produced one document marked as Ex.R1 with consent. 6. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It is held that the owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11125 MFA No. 23167 of 2012 7. The Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the Judgment and award passed in MVC No.1730/2011, has preferred this Miscellaneous First Appeal 8. Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the petitioners. 9. 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 accident. The said aspect was overlooked by the Tribunal and committed an error in fastening the liability without examining the breach of policy conditions. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Insurance Company has taken a specific defense that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident and he further submits that the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the tractor, but no charges - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11125 MFA No. 23167 of 2012 under Section 3 of M.V. Act was filed under the charge sheet. He further submits that neither the owner nor the insurance company adduced any evidence to demonstrate that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license. There is no rebuttal evidence. The Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability jointly and severally on the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The point that arises for consideration is about the liability. 12. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and death of Yallappa in the road traffic accident. Ex.P7 is the certified copy of the charge sheet, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. From the perusal of Ex.P7, which discloses that the charge - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11125 MFA No. 23167 of 2012 sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, read with Section 134 and 187 and Sections 3 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which discloses that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Thus, the vehicle was driven by an unauthorized person who did not possess a valid and effective driving license. The Tribunal, without considering Ex.P7, which clearly disclosed that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving license, committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Admittedly, there was a breach of policy conditions. The said aspect was not considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in passing the impugned Judgment. 13. In view of the above discussions, this Court holds that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident as per Ex.P7. The owner of the vehicle participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the owner did not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11125 MFA No. 23167 of 2012 enter the witness box nor produced the driving license to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident. The driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, however the policy was valid and in force as of the date of the accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount with accrued interest and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The Judgment and award passed in MVC No.1730/2011 dated 15.03.2012 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi, is set-aside against the Insurance Company and claim petition against the Insurance Company is dismissed and the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11125 MFA No. 23167 of 2012 owner of the offending vehicle is held liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners as awarded by the Tribunal. However, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. (iii) The amount in deposit, if any, and trial Court Records, be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/- CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2