- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12024 MFA No. 22919 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22919 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. MANJUNATH MALAKAJAPPA BARADELI AGE : 33 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O : GONNAGAR, TAL : RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. SHIVAPPA, S/O MANAPPA KAMMAR AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BLACKSMITH [NOW NIL], R/O : HAMPIHOLI, TAL : RAMADURG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.10003-E-8, RICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H M DHARIGOND, ADV FOR R1, SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:25-09-2012 PASSED IN MVC. NO.1689/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,60,496/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12024 MFA No. 22919 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This appeal is filed by the owner of the truck in question challenging the fastening of liability on him by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 25.09.2012 passed in MVC No.1689/2010 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belgaum. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 05.01.2010 at about 17.30 hours the petitioner was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 22/TR-9948, at that time, the driver of the truck bearing registration No.KA-22/A-3428 came from behind, in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the petitioner’s motorcycle and caused accident. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12024 MFA No. 22919 of 2013 3. The owner of the truck filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid and effective driving license and as of the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the lorry. 4. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that as the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 5. The petitioner also filed a claim petition in MVC. 2390 of 2010, seeking for damages to the vehicle. 6. The Tribunal clubbed both claim petitions and framed separate issues and additional issues. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12024 MFA No. 22919 of 2013 7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1 in MVC No.1689/2010 and as PW.2 in MVC No.2390/2010, examined the doctor as PW3 and marked 25 documents as Exhibits P.1 to P.25. In rebuttal, the official of the insurance company was examined as RW.2 and the owner of the offending vehicle was examined as RW.1 and marked 5 documents as Exhibits R1 to R5. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of ₹1,60,496/- in MVC No.1689 of 2010 and ₹10,000/- in MVC 2390 of 2010, to the petitioner, with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount. 9. The owner of the offending vehicle, being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1689 of 2010 filed this appeal. The owner did not challenge the judgment and award passed in MVC No.2390 of 2010, as judgment and award passed in MVC 2390 of 2007 has attained finality. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12024 MFA No. 22919 of 2013 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the owner of the offending truck. 11. Learned counsel for the owner of the truck submits that the Tribunal committed an error in saddling the liability on the owner of the offending truck. He submits that the driver was possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the insurance company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the owner of the truck. There is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. The owner of the offending truck contested the claim petition and examined himself as RW1. The owner of the truck has not produced the driving license to establish that as of the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid and effective driving license. The owner has entrusted the vehicle to a person, who did not possess a valid - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12024 MFA No. 22919 of 2013 and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, there is a breach of policy conditions. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability on the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle has accepted the findings recorded in MVC No.2390 of 2010. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability on the owner of the truck. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: The appeal is dismissed. Amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB