- 1 - MFA No. 7356 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7356 OF 2017 (MV-DM) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SRI SHARADA COMPLEX, OPP.K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND, B.D.ROAD, CHITRADURGA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS THE REGIONAL OFFICE, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., T.P HUB, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-580 020 BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANUMANTHARAYA S/O K THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REG NO.KA-02/AA-4228 R/O JOGIMATTI ROAD, 5TH CROSS, SUNNADA GUMMI, CHITRADURGA TOWN. 2. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY S/O VENKATA REDDY, - 2 - MFA No. 7356 of 2017 OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REG NO.AP/21/U-3762, R/O HOUSE NO.2-428-232-B3, BALAJI COMPLEX, NADIYALA-518 501 ANDRA PRADESH STATE. …RESPONDENTS (BY MISS DEEPU B.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI M.N.UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CASE NO.M.V.C.NO.130/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT CHITRADURGA AND SET ASIDE AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04TH APRIL 2017, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND/OR FURTHER RELIEFS, AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO - 3 - MFA No. 7356 of 2017 CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company seeking to set aside the judgment and award dated 04.04.2017, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Chitradurga passed in MVC No.130/2016. 2. The appellant herein is the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 and 2 herein are the petitioner No.1/claimant and respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. 3. Appellant herein is the Insurance Company, the respondent No.1 herein is the claimant and the respondent No.2 herein is the owner of the vehicle 4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal is that: On 12.01.2015 at about 4.30 p.m., the petitioner/claimant’s lorry bearing Registration No.KA- 02/AA-4228, driven slowly on the left side of the road near S.V.Warehouse, Vajrapura Mandal, Ananthapura District, - 4 - MFA No. 7356 of 2017 at the same time the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-21/U-3762, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed to the claimant’s lorry, causing complete damage to the claimant’s vehicle. The claimant spent Rs.50,000/- for initial repairs at M.S.Body Labour Work, Chitradurga and the Insurance Surveyor H.C.Himmath Kedar assessed the total loss at Rs.2,30,000/-. 5. The claimant, being the owner of the lorry and earning Rs.50,000/- per month, claims to have lost Rs.6,00,000/- as the vehicle remained idle for a year. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of lorry bearing reg.No.AP-21/U-3762. The claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation against the RC owner and the insurance company. However, the Insurance Company being a insurer of the offending vehicle contended that the driver was having valid insurance policy at the time of accident. Hence, Insurance Company filed the present appeal disputing the liability. - 5 - MFA No. 7356 of 2017 6. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition against the Insurance Company and held the claimant is entitled for recovery of sum of Rs.2,30,000/- as compensation with 7.5% interest per annum. The owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation on the reason that as on the date and time of the accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal had erroneously fastened the entire liability upon the Insurance Company and failed to examine whether respondent No.1 herein/claimant had obtained reimbursement from his insurer and overlooked the appellant’s categorical plea that the insurance policy was restricted its liability to only Rs.6,000/-, there being no additional premium paid for unlimited coverage. 8. It is also contended that the Tribunal also failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the Insurance Company, particularly regarding the fact that the driver of - 6 - MFA No. 7356 of 2017 the lorry involved in the accident did not possess a valid driving licence, which constitutes a fundamental breach of policy conditions. The order of the Tribunal is thus contrary. Hence, Insurance Company seek at least for pay and recovery of the compensation amount. 9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court (Kalaburgi Bench) in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Gulbarga v. Annemma Iranna Javalgi and others reported in 2018 (1) AKR 701, [MFA No.201484/2016 (MV)], with respect to pay and recover as the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of valid driving licence. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials on record. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the driver of the lorry had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. It is contended that the Insurance Company has issued notice to the - 7 - MFA No. 7356 of 2017 owner of the offending vehicle No.AP-21-4-3762 to produce the permit and F.C of the lorry under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC before the MACT, but failed to produce the same. There is violation of Policy terms and conditions by the 2nd respondent-Insured. It is further contended that policy is issued in the name of R.Ramakrishna Reddy and not the claimant Hanumantharaya and policy is valid ont eh date of accident. 12. It is observed by this Court that date, time, mode and manner of accident are not in dispute. The dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- towards damages to vehicle along with 7.5% interest awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company has also challenged the liability to pay the compensation. 13. In the present case, the Tribunal has observed that the Respondent No.1 is the RC owner of lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-21/U-3762 and the Respondent No.2 is the insurer. It is observed that the Respondent No.1 has - 8 - MFA No. 7356 of 2017 violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. 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 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 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. Accordingly, an order of pay and recovery is made. To this extent, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has to be modified. - 9 - MFA No. 7356 of 2017 14. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award dated 04.04.2017, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Chitradurga passed in MVC No.130/2016 is modified; iii) The appellant – claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. iv) The compensation amount along with accrued interest if any, shall be deposited by the respondent No.2 – 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; v) Apportionment and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be as per the impugned order of the Tribunal. vi) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified - 10 - MFA No. 7356 of 2017 copy of the judgment passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. vii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV