- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6873 MFA No. 102822 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 102821 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA M.F.A. NO. 102822 OF 2022 C/W. M.F.A. NO. 102821 OF 2022 (MV-I) IN MFA NO. 102822 OF 2022 BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, MELLIGERI COMPLEX, KALADAGI ROAD, BAGALKOTE. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY-587116. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUBBANNA S/O. JEMAPPA LAMANI, AGE 51 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. HONNIHAL L.T., TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587116. 2. THE HEAD MASTER, JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN, HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, R/O. BILAGI CROSS, BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587116. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VII BILAGI, ON 25.05.2022 IN MVC NO.274/2020, AND ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH COSTS & ETC. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6873 MFA No. 102822 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 102821 of 2022 IN MFA NO. 102821 OF 2022 BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, MELLIGERI COMPLEX, BAGALKOTE. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY-587116. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANUMANTH S/O. RANAVVA MADAR, AGE 60 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. BADARADINNI, TALUK BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587116. 2. THE HEAD MASTER, JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN, HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, R/O. BILAGI CROSS, BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587116. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VII BILAGI, ON 25.05.2022 IN MVC NO.338/2020, AND ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH COSTS. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6873 MFA No. 102822 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 102821 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) Above M.F.A. No. 102822/2022 and M.F.A. No. 102821/2022 are filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 25.03.2022 passed in M.V.C. No. 274/2020 and M.V.C. No. 338/2020 respectively, by the learned MACT-VII, Bilagi (for short, the ‘Tribunal’), challenging its liability to pay compensation. 2. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The only disputed question involved in these two appeals are whether the liability to pay compensation can be fastened on the insurance company and permit it to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, if the driver of the offending had no driving licence? 4. It is the case of the claimants in both the claim petitions were that rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle bearing No. KA-29-EC-2413, met with accident on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6873 MFA No. 102822 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 102821 of 2022 13.11.2018 around 8.30 a.m., when they were proceeding on Bilagi-Honnihal road due to rash and negligent driving of the school bus bearing No. KA-29-B-1448 (for short, ‘offending bus’) by its driver as a result of which they sustained injuries. Hence they sought for compensation. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending bus. 6. Respondent No.1 denied contents of the claim petitions and further stated that the offending bus was insured with respondent No.2 and it is liable to pay compensation. 7. Respondent No.2 also denied contents of the claim petitions and further stated that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and also holding of valid driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle. 8. The Tribunal framed necessary issues in both the cases. Respective claimants, rider and pillion rider, led - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6873 MFA No. 102822 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 102821 of 2022 their evidence as PW1 in their respective cases and documents were marked. Respondent No.2-insurer examined one witness and marked two documents. 9. During course of trial before Tribunal insurer filed an application requesting the Court to direct the respondent No.1-owner, to produce driving licence of the driver of the offending bus. It also appears that on 09.03.2022 respondent No.1 had appeared before the Tribunal and submitted that driver of the offending bus was not holding driving licence and said submission is noted in the order sheet. Copy of the order sheet as found in the website, is placed on record. The Tribunal although noted the said fact in the order sheet, but while passing the final order held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount. Aggrieved by the said finding the insurer filed the above two appeals praying to absolve its liability to pay compensation. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6873 MFA No. 102822 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 102821 of 2022 10. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer vehemently contends that the driver of the offending bus had no driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. Under such circumstances, fastening of liability to pay compensation on the insurer is not proper. He takes two illustrations, one is that driver had no licence and in another case driver had licence but as on the date of accident it was expired. 11. Learned Advocate for the appellant elaborates the said illustration. In the first case, since driver had no knowledge of driving, the owner had given the vehicle to such a person, therefore the insurance company is completely absolved from liability to pay compensation. In the second illustration referred above, the driver had a licence but it was expired and was not renewed even after expiry. Under such circumstances the question of ‘pay and recovery’ arises. First illustration applies to this case; In this case, the insurer cannot be directed to pay the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6873 MFA No. 102822 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 102821 of 2022 compensation and recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle, since driver had no valid licence. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimant vehemently contends that questions involved in this case is already decided by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yallavva and another reported in 2020 (2) KCCR 1405 and submits that there is no evidence to show that driver had no knowledge of driving the vehicle. The respondent No.1 has not disclosed whether the driver had licence and it expired or he had no licence. It was submitted before the Tribunal that driver had no driving licence. Moreover, the driver of offending vehicle was not chargesheeted for driving the vehicle without holding driving licence. Undisputedly the said vehicle is insured with appellant. Therefore he submits that the insurer be directed to pay compensation and liberty was given to the insurer, to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle since it is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6873 MFA No. 102822 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 102821 of 2022 not in dispute that said vehicle was insured with the appellant. 13. Submission of both the counsels are anxiously considered. Certain facts are absent in the present case. It is not in dispute that driver of the offending vehicle was chargesheeted for not having driving licence. Nowhere in the chargesheet and its enclosures it is mentioned that the driver had no knowledge of driving. In the evidence of claimants in both the cases or in the evidence of RW1 there is no reference as to which illustration is applicable to this case. It is not clear as to whether driver had licence, but it expired at the time of accident or he had no knowledge of driving and also no licence. In the absence of these facts it is difficult to accept that he had no driving knowledge. It is not the case of insurer that on that day only he was driving the bus. Hence it can be assessed that he had driving knowledge. 14. Driving licence will be issued to a person who has knowledge of driving and he passes the skill test of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6873 MFA No. 102822 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 102821 of 2022 driving. Such driving licence authorizes a driver to drive such class of vehicle on public road. Therefore submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that if a driver does not have driving licence means he had no knowledge of driving. There is no force in such presumption. There are many instances wherein driver has skill of driving but he did not obtain licence. Hence the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable. 15. The Tribunal in its judgment at paragraph No. 14 has referred to the judgments of this Court in the case of Appayyaachari Vs. K. Vadivel and another reported in 2014 (1) MACR 573 (Kar.), New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Wahid Ali Mohammed Asham and others reported in 2021 (1) KCCR 453 and Devaraju T. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2015 Kant MAC 345 regarding ‘pay and recovery’ principle. But while concluding on point of liability, it noted that even if the driving licence is not produced, insurance company cannot be absolved from its - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6873 MFA No. 102822 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 102821 of 2022 liability to pay compensation and liberty is also not given to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 16. The Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Yallavva (stated supra) these points are considered in detail and held that in such an event if the policy of insurance of the said vehicle is in force, then the insurance company shall pay compensation to the third party with a liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 17. In this case there is no dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2-appellant. The policy was in force as on the date of accident. Under such circumstances the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the third party and it can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 18. There is no appeal by the claimants and there is no dispute in respect of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore there is no need to re-look into the said act. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6873 MFA No. 102822 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 102821 of 2022 19. For the above said discussion the appeals are partly allowed directing the respondent-insurer is liable to pay compensation and it is at liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle, i.e., respondent No.1, in accordance with law. Appeals are disposed of accordingly. Whatever amount deposited by the appellant in both the appeals shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bvv /ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40