- 1 - MFA No. 7251 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7251 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: SRI.C.RAJAGOPAL S/O CHINNAPPA MESTRI AGE:59 YEARS OCC:DRY CLEANER R/O 42/43, 3RD BLOCK 5TH CROSS, DASAPPA LAYOUT RAMMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE-560 016. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.DENNIS NICO LAIS ROACH S/O MARIO ANTONY ROACH, MAJOR, R/O NO.73, 2ND MAIN 3RD CROSS, R R LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 016. 2. THE MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD NO.105(A), CEARS PLAZA IST FLOOR, 136 RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE-560 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R1 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 2 - MFA No. 7251 of 2014 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE XX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER M.A.C.T, BANGALORE IN MVC NO.6087/2005, (SCCH-22) AT BANGALORE DATED 07.07.2014 MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,93,000/- WITH 18% INTEREST PER ANNUM MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant directed against the judgment and award dated 07.07.2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru, (for short ‘Tribunal’), in MVC No.6087/2005. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that challenging the judgment and award in MVC No.6087/2005 dated 31.10.2006 he filed MFA No.5314/2007 before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, - 3 - MFA No. 7251 of 2014 which was partly allowed and awarded additional compensation of Rs.55,000/-. Again, MFA No.5637/2009 c/w MFA No.5314/2007 was filed by the Insurance Company and the claimant challenging the judgment and award in MVC No.6087/2005 dated 31.10.2006, which was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal has considered the matter afresh and partly allowed the claim petition on 07.07.2014 in MVC No.6087/2005 by awarding compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case for filing of this appeal are that: On 25.06.2005, at about 7.45 p.m., when the petitioner was crossing the road near Bhavani street in Ramamurthy Nagar main road in south to north direction, at that time, a Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03-EQ- 9931 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed - 4 - MFA No. 7251 of 2014 against the petitioner, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Manipal hospital wherein he was treated as an inpatient and later shifted to Bowring Hospital. Hence, filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1989 seeking for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 5. After issuance of notice, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company has appeared through its counsel and filed statement of objections. Though respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle has appeared through its counsel has not filed his written statement. 6. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner got himself examined as PW-1 and examined treated Doctor as PW-2 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P.23. On the other hand, respondents have examined two witnesses as RWs-1 and 2 and has got marked documents at Exs.R.1 and 2. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and held that the owner of the - 5 - MFA No. 7251 of 2014 offending vehicle is liable to pay a total compensation of Rs.1,07,000/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Ex.P.6 – wound certificate, appellant has sustained lacerated wound 8 x 2 cm over left leg, sutured wound over outer lateral aspect left eye 3 x 1 cm and swelling which are simple and grievous in nature. As per Ex.P.7 – discharge summary, petitioner was treated as an inpatient for a period of one month. The Tribunal has not properly considered the case of the appellant and awarded meager compensation under all heads, which require enhancement. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal and enhance compensation by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal after considering entire material placed before it, awarded appropriate compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for any - 6 - MFA No. 7251 of 2014 interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent No.2 and perused entire material on record. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following judgments:- 1. 2017 ACJ 1065 (KANT) between M.S.Lokesh vs. Achappa and another; 2. 2009 ACJ 406 (KANT) between Subodh Subhash Kakade Appasabad Jinnappa Chougule and another; 3. 2004 ACJ 1091 (KANT) between A.Anandan vs. Abdul Azeez and others; 4. 2020 (1) KAR.L.J.656 (KANT) Dharwad Bench between Senior Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co.Ltd., Ramdev Galli, Belgaum vs. Jyotiba Appaji Shigate and others. 12. In the case of the Senior Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co.Ltd., stated supra it has held in paragraph Nos.13, 18 and 25 has held as under:- “13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 countered to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that in - 7 - MFA No. 7251 of 2014 catena of decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the learner’s licence is also a valid licence and it cannot be considered as no licence. Further, the deceased, who was headmistress, was also holding a permanent driving licence and she accompanied as a pillion rider. Hence, there is no pleadings and defence setup by the Insurance Company before the tribunal in respect of validity of the learner’s licence. Further, it is argued that there is no instructor required for two wheeler motorcycle and instructor is required only for learning of four wheeler. The claimants themselves have produced both the licence at Exs.P14 and 15, which clearly goes to show that respondent No.1 had a valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle. There is no defence setup by the Insurance Company in respect of fixing the letter ‘L’ board on the motorcycle and there is no photograph of the scooter produced before the Court to show that letter ‘L’ was not mentioned on the scooter. The respondent- Insurance Company got admission from the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was also holding driving licence to drive motorcycle. When such being the case, it cannot be held that respondent No.1 did not have valid driving licence as contended by the insurer. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the tribunal after considering the evidence on record has rightly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company and it does not call for any interference by this Court. He also relied upon by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts. 18. Per contra, the learned counsel for claimant has contended that respondent No.1 was holding a learner’s - 8 - MFA No. 7251 of 2014 licence at the time of accident and the learner’s licence is also a valid licence to drive the vehicles or motorcycle. It is argued that the instructor is required only in case of four wheeler vehicle but not to two wheeler motorcycle. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as other Hon’ble High Courts, in following cases:- 1) In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Mandar Madhav Tambe, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1150, LAWS (SC) 1995 1237, 2) In the case of Mahamooda v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, LAWS (SC) 2004 957, 3) In the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Sheela Devi and others, (2018) Acci.C.R. 249 (P & H), 4) In the case of Shivpal Singh v. Lal Chand and others, 2010 ACJ 1120 (Raj). 25. In this case, admittedly, respondent No.1 was holding learner’s licence as per Ex.P14 and the deceased was holding a driving licence as on the date of the accident. The same was elucidated by the respondent’s counsel in the cross-examination of P.W.1. In his evidence, P.W.1 has clearly stated that the deceased was headmistress, who was also having motorcycle and she had a driving licence to ride the motorcycle. On the date of accident, the deceased was traveling with respondent No.1 as a pillion rider, who was holding a driving licence. There is no pleading or defence set up by the respondent/insurer before the Tribunal by taking contention that the deceased was not holding a driving licence and she traveled only as a pillion rider. When there is no pleading or defence setup before the Tribunal, the insurer has no right to take such a plea for the first - 9 - MFA No. 7251 of 2014 time before this Court in the appeal. That apart, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in catena of decisions has held that the learner’s licence is also a valid driving licence.” 13. On hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and on perusing the record, this Court has observed that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and material on record and has awarded adequate compensation, just and reasonable and with regard to enhancement of compensation, there are no merits to interfere with the impugned award of the Tribunal. Regarding pay and recovery: 14. With regard to liability, respondent No.2 before the Tribunal had taken specific contention that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence and he has produced Ex.R.2 – driving licence which shows that RW-1 – Driver was having effective driving licence from 18.01.2006 only for motor cycle with gear and as on the date of accident, he did not possess any driving licence. Hence, the driver was driving without driving licence but - 10 - MFA No. 7251 of 2014 RW-1 in his evidence has stated that he was possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident but he has failed to produce the same. On the other hand, he has produced copy of the LLR from 14.02.2005 to 13.09.2005, which is not marked. Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 prohibits him from driving any motor vehicle, unless he has the person duly licensed to drive the vehicle beside him and carries ‘L’ plate both in the front and back side. But the driver has failed to follow the above conditions. Hence, the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in exonerating the Insurance Company from paying compensation to the claimant. However, as per Sub- Section (2) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) when the Insurance Company established the fact that the driver was not holding driving licence, then as per Sub-sections (1), (4), (7) of Section 149 of the Act, the Insurance Company shall satisfy the claim in respect of third parties and then recover the same from the owner of the - 11 - MFA No. 7251 of 2014 offending vehicle. Accordingly, the order of pay and recovery is made as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of PAPPU AND OTHERS Vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208; NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 and also as per the full bench decision of this Court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. YELLAVVA AND ANOTHER reported in 2020 ACJ 2560 and also as per the decisions produced by the learned counsel for the appellant stated supra. Accordingly, an order of pay and recovery is made. To this extent, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. 15. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of filing of the petition till realization and shall recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. - 12 - MFA No. 7251 of 2014 16. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6087/2005, dated 07.07.2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru, (SCCH-22) is modified; iii) The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal along with accrued interest if any, shall be deposited by the Insurance Company, within eight weeks from the date of filing of the petition till realization and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle; iv) Upon deposit, entire amount shall be released in favour of appellant on proper identification in terms of award. v) No order as to costs. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE MH/-