- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1175 MFA No. 25765 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25765 OF 2012 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOKTAHALLI BUILDING, OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND, HAVERI, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ENKAY COMPLEX, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. SMT. HANUMAVVA W/O. HANUMAPPA, HARIJAN @ KENGOND, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KANAVALLI, TQ: HAVERI. 2. KUMAR S/O. MALLESHAPPA MALDHAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: DEVARGUDDA, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 3. PRAKASH S/O. SHANKARAPPA MALDAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: DEVARGUDDA, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 – NOTICE SERVED.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1175 MFA No. 25765 of 2012 CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.04.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.187/2011, ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 11.04.2012, passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Haveri, in MVC No.187/2011, questioning the liability fastened on it, on the ground that the driver of the offending motorcycle was not holding the driving licence to ride the motorcycle. Hence learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the material placed on record. 3. In this case, Ex.P.1 is the copy of the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer for the offences - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1175 MFA No. 25765 of 2012 punishable under sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC only. During the course of investigation, if it is not revealed that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding the driving licence, then the accused could have been charge sheeted also for the offence punishable under section 3 read with section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. But there is no offence foisted for not having the driving licence. The insurance company has sent notice to the owner of the motorcycle calling upon him to produce the driving licence, but there is no evidence from the insurance company that the said notice was served on the owner of the motorcycle. 4. Therefore, considering all these aspects it is not proved in the case that the rider of the motorcycle was not having driving licence to ride the motorcycle. The insurance company has filed application under section 16(1) and (2) of CPC calling upon the owner and rider of the motorcycle to produce the driving licence, but the said application was rejected. But the fact remains that during the course of investigation there was no material to show that rider of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1175 MFA No. 25765 of 2012 motorcycle was not holding driving licence as above discussed. 5. Therefore, the tribunal is correct in fastening liability on the insurance company. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 6. The amount in deposit made before this Court by the appellant Insurance Company and the trial Court records shall be transmitted to the tribunal. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK CT-CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 21