- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9529 MFA No. 24644 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24644 OF 2012 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. KUMARI IRFAN D/O MOHABASHA AGE: 08 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP BY HER NATURAL FATHER & GUARDIAN MOHABASHA, S/O. SHEIKDAR SYED SAB, R/O. SHANVASAPUR VILLAGE, TQ. SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. PATIL, ADV) AND: 1. KARADI RAVIKUMAR S/O K. KALLANAGOUDA AGE: MAJOR, DRIVER CUM OWNER OF THE CRUISER TRAX BEARING REG. NO.KA-34/A-2086, R/O D.NO.98, W.NO.2, NEAR GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL, DAMMUR VILLAGE, TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI. 2. CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., H.O. CHENNI HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT BALLARI, AT DOOR NO.116/17, NIRMAL BUILDING, OPP. COSMOPOLITAN CLUB, DOUBLE ROAD, BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GODE NAGARAJA, ADV FOR R1, SRI. R.R. MANE, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08-08-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.676/2011 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-III, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 13:02:20 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9529 MFA No. 24644 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 08.08.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.676/2011 by the M.A.C.T.- III, Ballari. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 30.08.2010, a minor girl was going to Urdu Primary School at Shanavaspur village on the left side of the road slowly and cautiously. At that time, respondent No.1, being the driver of the vehicle, bearing No.KA-34/A 2086 driven the said vehicle at a very high speed and in a negligent manner and dashed to the minor girl. As a result, she sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent disability and she was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient from 30.08.2010 to 11.11.2010. Thus, the natural guardian, i.e., her father, filed a claim petition - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9529 MFA No. 24644 of 2012 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, representing the claimant. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a statement of objections independently denying the averments made in the claim petition. Hence, pray to dismiss the claim petition. 4. The tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 5. The father of the claimant was examined as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-17. The official of the respondent-insurance company was examined as RW-1 and marked the insurance policy as Ex.R-1. 6. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.56,090/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till realization and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9529 MFA No. 24644 of 2012 directed respondent No.1 to pay the compensation and deposit the award amount before the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of judgment. The claimant, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant and also the learned counsel for respondent No.2- the insurance company. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle. He submits that the burden is on the insurance company to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. He submits that the insurance company, except, leading oral evidence, has not taken any steps to contend that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. He submits that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9529 MFA No. 24644 of 2012 Tribunal has not assigned any reasons to fasten the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, the judgment and award of the Tribunal is illegal, perverse and arbitrary. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- insurance company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license. He submits that there is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, he submits that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle. He submits that in Ex.P-3, the police have recorded that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. He further submits that the judgment and the compensation, awarded by the Tribunal, is just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9529 MFA No. 24644 of 2012 10. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The points that would arise for consideration are about the liability and quantum of the compensation. Regarding liability: 12. There is no dispute that the claimant met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. To prove that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, charge sheet has been produced and marked as Ex.P-5. The Tribunal, considering Ex.P-5, rightly recorded its finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 13. Insofar as liability is concerned, the insurance company has taken a specific defence in the statement of objections contending that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, and it is contended - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9529 MFA No. 24644 of 2012 that there is a breach of conditions of the insurance policy. Although the contention of the breach of condition of the policy was raised before the Tribunal, no issue was framed nor was any evidence led to prove the same. It is mandatory for the respondent-insurance company, not only to plead the said breach, but also to substantiate the same by adducing positive evidence in respect of the same. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be presumed that there was a breach of the condition of the policy. Thus, there was no reason to fasten the liability of payment of compensation awarded by the Tribunal only on the owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle. As observed above, respondent No.2- insurance company has not led any evidence to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Further, the Tribunal has not framed any issue, nor discussed about the liability in the entire impugned - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9529 MFA No. 24644 of 2012 judgment and without assigning any reasons, the Tribunal has fastened the liability only on respondent No.1, which is illegal, perverse and arbitrary. Regarding the quantum of compensation: 14. The claimant, to prove that she has sustained grievous injuries in the accident, has examined doctor as PW-2, who has issued disability certificate. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant is entitled to global compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as against Rs.56,090/-. 15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9529 MFA No. 24644 of 2012 (ii) The judgment and award dated 08.08.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.676/2011 by the M.A.C.T.- III, Ballari, is modified. (iii) Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with accrued interest to the claimant as awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7