- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5918 MFA No. 24305 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24305 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, COSMOS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, "E" WARD, NEW SHAPURI ROAD, KOLHAPUR, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM, NOW REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, ARIHANT PLAZA, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-23. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MANIKANT S/O. LAXMAN PASALKAR, AGE 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT & HOTEL BUSINESS, R/O. MANGASULI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SRI. SIDDALING S/O. MALLAPPA BANI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALAKNUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.03.2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACT COURT, ATHANI IN M.V.C. NO.672/2011 WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5918 MFA No. 24305 of 2012 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This appeal is by the insurer (respondent No.2) against the judgment and award dated 31.03.2012 passed in M.V.C. No. 672/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Athani (for short, the ‘Tribunal’). Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, it is the case of the claimant that on 12.02.2011 he met with accident on Athani-Kagawad road near Mangasuli village due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailors bearing Reg. Nos. KA-23/T-4259, KA-23-T-2084 and 2085 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’), and sustained grievous injuries. He took initial treatment at Athani and took higher treatment as inpatient in the hospital of Dr. Kumbar at Miraj. He underwent surgery and spent more than - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5918 MFA No. 24305 of 2012 Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses. The claimant also contended that he was aged about 18 years at the time of accident and studying in Diploma. During leisure period he used to attend Dhaba Hotel run by his uncle and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. He was a brilliant student having good academic history. Due to injuries sustained in the accident he has been suffering from permanent disability which is affecting his earning capacity. With these reasons prayed to award compensation. 3. Respondent No.2, i.e., insurer, denied contents of the claim petition and it is further stated that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal framed necessary issues on considering the rival contentions. The claimant to prove his case examined himself as PW1 and marked 56 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.56. Respondents not led oral evidence - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5918 MFA No. 24305 of 2012 but marked one document as Ex.R.1. After hearing both parties the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition awarding Rs.1,11,000/- as compensation and directed both the owner and insurer to pay compensation. 5. The only ground on which this appeal is filed is that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. Inspite of that, the Tribunal has fastened liability on the insurer, which is erroneous. 6. The Tribunal has framed issue No.4 in respect of holding of valid driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle. In paragraph No. 9 internal page No. 8 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has noted that driver of the offending vehicle was chargesheeted for violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for the offences punishable u/S 3 r/w Sec. 181 of M.V. Act for not holding valid and effective driving licence, still the Tribunal holds that the said issue was not proved by the insurer. It is also worth to note that evidence of claimant’s side was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5918 MFA No. 24305 of 2012 over on 28.03.2012 and the next date was given on 31.03.2012 for evidence of respondent No.2. Though the respondent No.2 requested to issue witness summons to the witnesses, the Tribunal rejected the same and closed the evidence. Therefore the Tribunal did not give opportunity to the respondent No.2 to lead necessary evidence to prove that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence. 7. It is also worth to note that chargesheet which is marked in the evidence of claimant, reveals that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence. Owner of the vehicle remained exparte. There is no denial of contents of the chargesheet that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore formal proof of the said fact, when there is no dispute, is required. Basing on the admissions of the driver of the offending vehicle, which is noted in the chargesheet the Tribunal ought to have held that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5918 MFA No. 24305 of 2012 and effective driving licence. Therefore the Tribunal erred in answering the said issue in the negative. 8. The matter was pending before the Tribunal nearly for a period of one year and during the pendency of the matter at no point of time the owner or driver of the vehicle tried to produce the said driving licence. When such is the case the detail investigation of the fact of licence held by the driver of the tractor and trailer was not required. 9. It is not in dispute that the said offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and policy was in force as on the date of accident. Under such circumstances Full Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yallavva and another reported in AIR ONLINE 2020 KAR 986, held that the insurer is liable to pay compensation and recover it from the owner of the vehicle. Same could be applied to facts of present case. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5918 MFA No. 24305 of 2012 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the question raised above is answered partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (1) Appeal is allowed in part; (2) Judgment and award dated 31.03.2012 passed in M.V.C. No. 672/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Athani, is modified. (3) Respondent No.2 shall pay the award amount to the claimant and it is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No.1) in an appropriate proceeding. (4) Remaining portion of the impugned judgment and award is not disturbed. Whatever amount deposited before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Tribunal along with trial Court records. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bvv /ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3