- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4267 MFA No. 25140 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25140 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR HUBLI, REPRESENTED BY IT’S ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-29. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUMAR S/O. RAVINDRAPPA BELLUR, AGE 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O.HIREMORAB, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. (NOTE: AT THE TIME OF ACCIDENT HE WAS MINOR AND AT THE TIME OF FILING APPEAL HE BECAME MAJOR. HENCE THE GUARDIAN IS NOT REFERRED) 2. SHRI. CHIDANANDA S/O. GIRISH GOWDA, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.TURUVANOOR, DIST: CHITRADURGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH L. HEGDE, ADV. FOR SRI. M. H. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. B. R. BHAT, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS HEAR THE PARTIES AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN MVC NO.60/2011 DATED 28.07.2012 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HIREKERUR, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4267 MFA No. 25140 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. Respondent No.2, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 28.07.2012 passed in MVC No.60/2011 (Old No.243/2008) by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The claimant, respondent No.1 herein who is a minor, through his guardian, has filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to ‘the M.V.Act’, for short), seeking compensation for the injuries caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The Tribunal considering the claim, awarded compensation of Rs.1,28,000/- and the same is challenged in the present appeal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. It is the case of the claimant that on 27.07.2007 at about 6.10 p.m., when he was traveling on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4267 MFA No. 25140 of 2012 his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-27/305 from Hiremorab to Masur, met with an accident involving a Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA15/1558. In the said accident, he sustained grievous injuries stated in the petition and filed a petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation. 5. The respondent No.2 denies the said contentions and further contends that their liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and holding of valid licence of the driver of the Tempo. 6. On perusal of rival contentions of the parties, Tribunal framed the following issues: Issues 1. Whether the petitioner proves he has sustained injuries in the accident? 2. Whether respondent proves that petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the petitioner entitled for compensation. If so from whom and to what extent? 4. To what order or Award? - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4267 MFA No. 25140 of 2012 7. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked 12 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P12. Respondent No.2 got marked one document as per Ex.R1. 8. During the pendency of this appeal, respondent No.2 filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, which was allowed and one document was marked as Ex.R2. 9. Based on the pleading and evidence placed on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,28,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and held respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The same is challenged by the appellant mainly on two grounds; firstly, the claimant was a minor and he was riding the motorcycle without driving licence and knowledge of riding and therefore, fastening of entire negligence on the part of the driver of the Tempo is incorrect. Secondly, as on the date of accident, as per Ex.R2, the Tempo driver had no valid and effective driving - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4267 MFA No. 25140 of 2012 licence and the period of the licence was expired. Therefore, Insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 10. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and the learned counsel Sri.Vishwanath Hegade for claimant. 11. On perusal of Tribunal Records, undisputedly the claimant was a minor at the time of the accident and he was driving the motorcycle on the main road. This fact itself clearly indicates that both the minor as well as the owner of the vehicle were negligent. The owner ought not to have given the vehicle to a minor aged about 15 years for riding. This fact clearly indicates that he has also contributed for the accident in question. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, contribution of the claimant for causing the accident in question is taken at 25%. The contention of the appellant regarding quantum of compensation is not tenable. The Tribunal by assigning proper and justifiable reasons, awarded just compensation, which does not call for any interference. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4267 MFA No. 25140 of 2012 13. The appellant/insurer in the written statement, contends that the driver of the Tempo was not holding effective and valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Burden lies on respondent No.2 to prove the said contention. However, respondent No.2 did not produce relevant document before the Tribunal to prove its contention. 14. In this appeal, respondent No.2 has produced the driving licence of the driver of the Tempo at Ex.R2. The said document shows that the said driving licence was renewed from 03.09.2002 to 02.09.2005 and again it was renewed from 18.09.2007 to 17.09.2010. The date of accident is 27.07.2007. Therefore, as on the date of the accident, the driver of the Tempo was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. 15. Now it is settled principal of law that in case of defective licence or not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, insurer has to pay the compensation and it can be recovered from the owner of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4267 MFA No. 25140 of 2012 the vehicle. Since as on the date of the accident, the driver of the Tempo was not holding valid and effective driving licence, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. Since, the vehicle was insured as on the date of the accident, respondent No.2 shall pay compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in appropriate proceedings. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that entire amount of compensation with interest has been deposited in the Court. In that event, the respondent/insurer is permitted to take back excess amount deposited by it. To that extent, effective orders needs to be passed. 17. For the aforesaid discussions, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 28.07.2012 passed in MVC No.60/2011 (Old No.243/2008) by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur is modified. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4267 MFA No. 25140 of 2012 iii. The claimant/appellant is entitled for Rs.96,000/- compensation (75% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of petition till its realization. iv. The respondent No.2, being the insurer shall pay the said amount on behalf of respondent No.1 and is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, in appropriate proceedings. v. Deposit and release of compensation to the claimant is as ordered by the Tribunal. vi. The amount for which the claimant is entitled along with interest, as ordered above, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal and the amount in excess of compensation and interest shall be refunded to the insurer on due acknowledgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGK / CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4