- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9531 MFA No. 102361 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102361 OF 2025 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER CTS NO. 477/1M-1, 1ST FLOOR V.A KALBURGI HALLMARK BESIDE INDUSIND BANK, DESAI CROSS, RINTO ROAD, HUBBALLI 580020. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADV) AND: 1. SHANTA W/O BASAVARAJ VANI AGE 51 YEARS, OCC. KIRANA SHOP (NOW NIL DUE TO ACCIDENT) R/O. NO.373, BAZAR GALLI, VADAGAON BELAGAVI 590003, ADHAR NO. 274564015804. 2. SHRI. MARUTI S/O BHARAMA DHOTRE AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER R/O. NO.742, TEGGIN GALLI, VADDAR CHAVANI M. VADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590005. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.287/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,58,208/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Date: 2025.08.11 16:00:37 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9531 MFA No. 102361 of 2025 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 is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and award dated 21.01.2025 passed in MVC No.287/2023 by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, and Member Addl. MACT, Belagavi (for short ‘the Tribunal’) 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: Respondent No.1 herein met with an accident on 14.09.2022, while she was travelling as a passenger in an Auto Rickshaw bearing No.KA-22 D-9461, when the Auto Rickshaw was proceeding from Bastawad village to Halaga on the service road near Bharatesh School, the driver of the Auto Rickshaw drove the same at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and due to his negligence it - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9531 MFA No. 102361 of 2025 tumbled down on the road. As a result, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. She took treatment at KLE Hospital, Belgaum and spent a huge amount. It is contended that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with appellant and respondent No.2 is the driver of the Auto Rickshaw. Hence, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appellant filed a statement of objections denying the claim petition averments and contended that the said Auto Rickshaw did not have a permit to fly on the road. Thus, there is a violation of the policy conditions. It is also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2. 4. Respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and it is contended that the vehicle is insured with appellant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9531 MFA No. 102361 of 2025 Hence, if in case of any liability on his part, the same has to be indemnified by the Insurance Company i.e. appellant. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2 herein. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioner, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW-1, also examined the Doctor as PW-2, and marked 14 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. The official of the appellant-Insurance Company was examined as RW-2 and the RTO was examined as RW-1 and marked 7 documents, as Exs.R1 to Ex.R7. 7. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part, and held that the respondent No.1 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,58,208/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. However, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9531 MFA No. 102361 of 2025 Tribunal also recorded the finding that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner/claimant and recover the same from the owner. The appellant- Insurance Company, aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and award passed in MVC No.287/2023 dated 21.01.2025, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He also submits that the owner of the vehicle did not have a permit to fly on the road. There is a violation of the policy conditions. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error in directing appellant to pay the compensation with accrued interest, and recover the same from the owner i.e. respondent No.2. Hence, on these grounds, he submits that the impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary, erroneous and perverse. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9531 MFA No. 102361 of 2025 10. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 11. Insofar as the occurrence of the accident and injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. The Insurance Company has taken a specific defence in the statement of objections that the owner of the Auto Rickshaw did not have a permit to fly on the road. To substantiate the defence, the Insurance Company examined the RTO as RW-1, who deposed that the vehicle involved in the accident did not have a permit to fly on the road. The insurance company also examined its official, as RW-2. 12. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, has recorded a finding that the owner of the offending vehicle was driving the Auto Rickshaw without a permit, and also held that appellant-Insuarnce Company is directed to pay the compensation to the respondent No.1-claimant and recover the same from - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9531 MFA No. 102361 of 2025 respondent No.2-owner. However, as of the date of the accident, the vehicle was insured with Insurance Company, i.e., appellant herein. As the policy was in force, the Tribunal, considering the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena judgments, directed appellant, who is the insurer, to indemnify respondent No.1 herein, and directed appellant Insurance Company to pay and recover the same from the owner of the Auto Rickshaw i.e. respondent No.2. 13. The Tribunal has rightly recorded its findings. There is a violation of policy conditions as the Auto Rickshaw was flying on the road without a permit. The Tribunal was justified in directing the Insurance Company to pay and recover the same from the owner. However, there is no adverse order against the insurance company. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is not maintainable. Hence, I do not find any error in the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9531 MFA No. 102361 of 2025 impugned Judgment, and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The Judgment and award dated 21.01.2025 passed in MVC No.287/2023 by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member Addl. MACT, Belagavi, is hereby confirmed. iii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted the Tribunal forthwith. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2025 do not survive for consideration, and the same is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/- CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2