- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10871 MFA No. 102025 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102025 OF 2015 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. IRANNA S/O ADIVEPPA PENTED, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER NOW NIL, R/O: DODAWAD, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI, NOW RESIDING AT RAGUNATH PETH, ANGOL, BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI. ABDUL SHOAB S/O ABDUL LATIF SHAIKH, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O, R/20/A, PATNI BUILDING, TEMKAR STREET (AMR), MUMBAI STATE MAHARASHTRA-08, NOW R/AT 4TH CROSS, AZAD NAGAR, BELAGAVI. (OWNER OF TATA SUMO BEARING REG.NO.MH-04/AA-9347). 2. THE HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 6TH FLOOR, LEELA BUSINESS PARK, ANDERI-KURLA ROAD, ANDERI, (EAST) MUMBAI-59, REPRESENTED BY ITS D.O. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, VIRUPAX KRUPA, OPP. KINS MAIN GATE, P.B. ROAD, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.02.2015, PASSED IN MVC MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.09 12:05:54 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10871 MFA No. 102025 of 2015 NO.1500/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND IV MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWINT THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. 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 Miscellaneous First Appeal No.102025/2015 is filed by the claimant, challenging the Judgment and award dated 21.02.2015 passed in MVC No.1500/2012 by the learned III Additional District Judge and IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as follows: The claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/V-1272 on 13.11.2011. The driver of a Tata-sumo bearing registration No.MH-04/AA-9347 came - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10871 MFA No. 102025 of 2015 in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the said motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent disability. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, seeking compensation on the account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 3. Though notice was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle, despite service of notice, he remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying averments made in the claim petition and contenting that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. It further contended that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount as claimed by the claimant. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against Insurance Company. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10871 MFA No. 102025 of 2015 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The claimant, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. In response, neither the owner nor the Insurance Company led either oral or documentary evidence. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs and awarded compensation of Rs.87,000/- with the interest at the rate of 8% and dismissed the claim petition against the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The owner of the offending vehicle was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10871 MFA No. 102025 of 2015 8. The claimant, being aggrieved by the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant filed an I.A.No.1/2015 for production of additional evidence, wherein he produced the certified copy of the driving license extract dated 30.03.2015 issued by the RTO Mumbai West, Transport Department, Government of Maharashtra, pertaining to the driver of the offending vehicle. He submits that as of the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid and effective driving license. The said license could not be produced earlier by the claimant on the ground that the owner, being a party to the claim petition, was expected to produce the driving license of the driver. Since the owner did not contest the claim petition, the same was not placed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10871 MFA No. 102025 of 2015 on record. Hence, he submits that the application may be allowed and the liability may be fastened on the Insurance Company. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that he has no objection to allowing I.A.No.1/2015 and also submits that the extract of the driving license be marked with the consent of the parties and dispose of the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The point that arises for consideration is about the liability. 13. There is no dispute that the claimant met with an accident, on 13.11.2011, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Tata-sumo bearing registration No.MH-04/AA-9347. The documents produced by the claimant, disclose that the accident was occurred due to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10871 MFA No. 102025 of 2015 rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 14. Insofar as liability is concerned, the Insurance Company has taken a specific defense in its statement of objections contending that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license. The burden is on the Insurance Company to prove that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The Insurance Company has neither entered the witness box nor produced any records to show that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle. Admittedly, the claimant has produced extract of the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle, which is before this Court with the consent of the parties as Ex.P10. The Ex.P10 discloses that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10871 MFA No. 102025 of 2015 date of the accident. Since the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. 15. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the liability has to be fastened on both the owner and the Insurance Company jointly and severally. 16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The Judgment and award dated 21.02.2015 passed in MVC No.1500/2012 by the learned III Additional District Judge and IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, is modified. (iii) The Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10871 MFA No. 102025 of 2015 set-aside. The claim petition filed by the claimant is allowed against the insurance company. (iv) The owner and Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. (v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. (vi) The office is directed to transmit the trial Court records forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/- CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8