- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29478 MFA No. 115 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1027 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2015 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1027 OF 2015 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 115/2015 BETWEEN: THE BRANCH CLAIMS MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, NO.69, SECOND FLOOR, JP & DEVI JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH CLAIMS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O HANUMANTHANAGAR, DHANASIPALYA, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT- 562 123. 2. THE MANAGER FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29478 MFA No. 115 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1027 of 2015 PASADENA NO.181 (OLD NO.125/A), 3RD FLOOR, ASHOK PILLAR ROAD, 1ST BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 011. 3. SRI NAGARAJ S V S/O VENKATESH MAJOR IN AGE, R/O NO.1003, 1ST MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD PHASE BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085. 4. SMT MALATI W/O KRISHNA KUMARA NO.20, 4TH CROSS, HOSAKEREHALLI, BANGALORE - 562 185. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 13.12.2023, NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT, R4-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.399/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.60,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 1027/2015 BETWEEN: 1. SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT HANUMANTHANAGAR DHANASIPALYA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29478 MFA No. 115 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1027 of 2015 NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., PASADENA NO.181 (OLD NO.125/A) 3RD FLOOR, ASHOK PILLAR ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011. 2. SRI NAGARAJ S.V., S/O VENKATESH, R/AT NO.1003, IST MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085. 3. THE MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, NO.69, 2ND FLOOR, J.P. AND DEVIJAMBUKESWAR ARCADE, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE-52. 4. SMT MALATI W/O KRISHNA KUMARA, NO.20, 4TH CROSS, HOSKEREHALLI BANGALORE-85. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3, VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.2016, NOTICE TO R1, R2 AND R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29478 MFA No. 115 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1027 of 2015 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 3.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.399/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT Both these appeals arises out of judgment and award dated 03.11.2014 passed by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal) in MVC.No.399/2011. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief case of both the parties are that, on 30.12.2010, at around 11:45 a.m, the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider on Honda Axis motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-51-W-3972 and one Narasimha - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29478 MFA No. 115 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1027 of 2015 was driving the said vehicle; At Silk Farm, on Kanakapura Bangalore road, they met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of an Ambulance van bearing No.KA- 01-D-2844, by its driver. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment as in- patient. He was a student of ITI and was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. Due to the accident he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- 4. The claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Initially the claim petition was filed against owner and insurer of the Maruthi van (ambulance), it appears later on 05.08.2013 owner and insurer of the motor cycle were added as respondent Nos.3 and 4. 5. Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the case of the claimant, denied its liability to pay the compensation. It was contended that accident occurred due to the negligence of rider of the motor cycle and a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29478 MFA No. 115 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1027 of 2015 criminal case was registered against him. Therefore, respondent No.2 was not liable to pay the compensation. 6. Respondent No.3, in its written statement denied the contentions of the claimant, denied its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the rider of the motor cycle was not holding a valid and effective driving license and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. The Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the petitioner proves that on 30.12.2010 at about 11.45 a.m. on Kanakapura - Bengaluru Main Road, opposite Silk Farm, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South taluk, the road traffic accident took place due to the actionable negligence of the driver of Maruthi Van (ambulance) bearing registration No.KA-01-D- 2844 by which the petitioner sustained injuries? ii. Whether the petitioner proves that petitioner is entitled for compensation? if so, what amount and from whom? iii. What order or award? 8. Claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PWS-1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. Respondent examined three witnesses as RWS-1 to 3 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29478 MFA No. 115 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1027 of 2015 marked Exs.R1 to R6. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 9. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and directed respondent No.3 to pay the compensation and respondent No.4 shall indemnify the same. Being aggrieved by the same findings, respondent No.4 preferred MFA No.115/2015. The claimants filed MFA.No.1027/2015 seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. I have heard the arguments. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurer of motor cycle vehemently contended that pleadings of the petitioner, issues framed in this case are totally against the owner and insurer of the ambulance van. The Tribunal dismissed the claim against him and without any pleading or prayer fastened the liability on respondent Nos.3 and 4. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29478 MFA No. 115 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1027 of 2015 The Tribunal has not considered the fact that the rider of the motor cycle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license and he was charge sheeted for the said offence. Under such circumstances, the insurer is not liable to compensate the owner of the vehicle, as the owner had handed over the offending vehicle to an unauthorised person, who did not hold a valid and effective driving licence. This aspect was not taken into consideration. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Beli Ram vs Rajinder Kumar and another1 and submits that in view said judgment, respondent No.4 be exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Both vehicles involved in the accident were made parties to the proceedings. The parties who had grievances regarding the issues framed by 1 2020 ACJ 3000 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29478 MFA No. 115 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1027 of 2015 the Tribunal should have filed proper applications and had the issues corrected accordingly. It is a settled principle of law that a third-party claimant can seek compensation from all joint tortfeasors. The Tribunal directed respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to pay the compensation. Even if the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid licence, as per the settled position of law, the insurer is required to satisfy the award and subsequently recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. He further contended that, considering the nature of injuries and the treatment undergone, the compensation awarded may be enhanced. 13. It is true that, in the pleadings, allegations were made against the driver of the ambulance for driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. During the course of evidence, this allegation was reiterated by the claimants. However, two years after the filing of the petition, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were impleaded as parties through an appropriate application. After impleading respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the claimants ought - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29478 MFA No. 115 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1027 of 2015 to have amended their pleadings to include relevant facts concerning the newly added parties. 14. The averments in the claim petition do not show that rider of the motorcycle in which the claimant was travelling, was also joint tortfeasor. The claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal ought to have framed the issues accordingly. Nevertheless, the matter proceeded based on the originally framed issues and both the parties understood their respective cases and proceeded with the trial. Hence not framing of necessary issues in insignificant. Both the parties did not make an attempt to get it corrected. On this ground there is no need to set aside the impugned judgement. Undisputedly, the charge sheet in the criminal case was filed against the rider of the motorcycle, and the claimant was the pillion rider of the motor cycle. It is undisputed that both vehicles were involved in the accident. Therefore, under the law, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation from either or both of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29478 MFA No. 115 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1027 of 2015 vehicle owners and their respective insurers. Since this petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, no pleading and proof of negligence is required. In light of the above facts and circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal requires modification. 15. Undisputedly, both the vehicles were involved in the accident. Claimant being third party can claim compensation from either or both the owners of the vehicle. As both vehicles were involved and their owners have been made parties, liability shall be apportioned equally. Therefore, the owner and insurer of the ambulance shall pay 50% of the compensation, and the owner and insurer of the motorcycle shall pay the remaining 50%. 16. It is the contention of respondent No. 4 that the person riding the said vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, while the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and indemnify - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29478 MFA No. 115 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1027 of 2015 the owner, it shall be at liberty to recover 50% of the compensation amount from the owner of the motor cycle. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and since the claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the amount of compensation awarded is just and reasonable. and do not call for interference. 17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. MFA.No.1027/2015 is dismissed. ii. MFA.No.115/2015 is partly allowed. iii. All the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. iv. Liability is apportioned between the said owners of the vehicle equally. v. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall pay the 50% of the compensation and remaining 50% shall be paid to respondent Nos.3 and 4. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29478 MFA No. 115 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1027 of 2015 vi. Respondent No.4 shall pay to an extent of 50% on behalf of respondent No.3 and it is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. vii. Remaining portion of the judgment is not disturbed. viii. Whatever amount deposited by the appellant-insurer shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement. If the said amount is in excess of 50% with proportion interest, then the same shall be refunded to respondent No.4. Send the copy of this Judgment with TCR to the Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24