- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25767 MFA No. 3042 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3042 OF 2022 (MV-DM) BETWEEN: MR ANISH NANDA S/O KAILASH CHANDRA NANDA @ K.C. NANDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. L 2, 2nd FLOOR, SHAKTHI PRIDE APARTMENT, 10th CROSS, B CHANNASANDRA, KALYANANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 043. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHADEVA SWAMY P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. PRAKASH M R S/O RAMAIAH. M, MAJOR, R/AT NO. 591, 3rd CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 086. 2. THE MANAGER, SHRIRAM GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 5/4, III FLOOR, S.V.ARCADE BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD, I.I.M POST, B.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATET FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 23.09.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25767 MFA No. 3042 of 2022 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.12.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.4331/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT., BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Mahadeva Swamy.P learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy who represents Sri.B.Pradeep learned counsel on record for respondent No.2. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in M.V.C. No.4331/2019 dated 06.12.2021. This is a claimant's appeal. The Tribunal exonerated the liability of respondent No.2- insurance company and directed respondent No.1-owner to pay compensation and aggrieved by the same the present appeal is filed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25767 MFA No. 3042 of 2022 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, arguing the matter, contends that the vehicle of the appellant was damaged badly due to the accident and he spent huge amount for getting the vehicle repaired. Sufficient evidence was produced to that effect. Learned counsel also states that the appellant should not suffer due to the alleged breach of terms and conditions of the policy by the owner of the vehicle and therefore justice has to be done to him. 4. Sri. Mallikarjuna Reddy who represents respondent No.2 submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license by the date of accident. Also there was no permit and fitness certificate. Having considered these aspects, the Tribunal fastened the liability against the owner of the offending vehicle only. However, in case the Court directs, the insurance company will pay the compensation to the appellant. However, liberty may be granted to the insurance company to recover the said sum from the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. Having considered the submission thus made by both the learned counsel and upon applying established principles of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25767 MFA No. 3042 of 2022 law, more particularly the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that an order of pay and recovery ought to have been passed by the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also states that the interest granted by the Tribunal is exorbitant and the same may be reduced to 6% per annum. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant did not raise any objection for such rate of interest. 8. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following:- ORDER i) The appeal is Allowed in Part. ii) The rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25767 MFA No. 3042 of 2022 iv) On such deposit, respondent No.2 is permitted to recover the same from respondent No.1 by initiating appropriate proceedings. v) The appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 CT: BHK