- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2771 MFA No. 200922 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200922 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE HEAD C.S.C IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., G1, G2, G12 AND G13, ASIAN ARCADE, NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B. TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOHD. RAFEEK S/O NOORUDDIN KALADAGI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR (NIL), R/O: H.NO.62/1, DECCAN COLONY, NEAR KHADRI CHOWK, KALABURAGI – 585 102. 2. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN S/O BAVASAB AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS & OWNER OF AUTO NO.KA-32/A-0370 (ASR.C), R/O: H.NO.9-61615, ALAND ROAD, SHAIK DECCAN COLONY, Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2771 MFA No. 200922 of 2020 KALABURAGI – 585 102. 3. MAHADEV S/O SHRIMANTHRAO AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS & OWNER OF AUTO NO.KA-32/A-0370 (AS POLICY), R/O: H.NO.2-31, BHAVANI NAGAR, KALABURAGI- 585 102. …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 02.06.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.09.2019, IN M.V.C.NO.1032/2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T., KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 11.09.2019 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Kalaburagi in MVC No.1032/2016, this appeal is filed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2771 MFA No. 200922 of 2020 2. Sri Subash Mallapur, learned counsel for appellant- Insurance Company submits that occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle due to rash and negligent driving by its driver and claimant sustaining injuries in said accident are not in dispute. Even quantum of compensation awarded under various heads is also not in dispute. Main grounds of challenge are that driver of insured vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license at time of accident and injured was an unauthorized passenger in private vehicle. 3. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused impugned judgment and award. 4. Accident in question occurred on 23.02.2016 involving Auto bearing no.KA-32/A-0370 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver injuring claimant i.e., Mohd. Rafeek. Claimant is stated to have taken treatment in hospital spending money, but sustained permanent disability. These are also not in dispute. Claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation towards loss of earning capacity. He examined himself as PW-1 and Dr. Ravi E. Shivaraya, as PW-2. He got marked Ex.P-1 to P-10. Insurance company examined its - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2771 MFA No. 200922 of 2020 official as RW-1 and got marked insurance policy as Ex.R-1 and certified copy of statements of witnesses as Ex.R-2 and 3. On consideration of same, Tribunal held claimant had established occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver and claimants sustained permanent disability. It assessed compensation as follows and held Insurance Company liable to pay: Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Attending Charges, Food and Conveyance Rs.4,000/- Loss of future income Rs.46,200/- Loss of income during treatment Rs.7,000/- Loss of amenities and nutrition food Rs.10,000/- Total Compensation Rs.87,200/- 5. Before Tribunal, it is seen claimant produced FIR, Complaint, Charge sheet and Crime Details Form as Ex.P-1 to 4 to substantiate contention about rash driving of driver. It is seen that police after investigation filed charge-sheet against driver for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC read with Section 187 of M.V.Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2771 MFA No. 200922 of 2020 6. It is seen that there is no charge against driver about driving vehicle without valid driving licence. Insurer has not examined Regional Transport Officer or produced notices issued to owner for production of driving licence. While passing impugned award, Tribunal has taken note of same and held Insurer liable to pay compensation. Insofar as contention about injured claimant being unauthorized passenger, there is no material placed on record. Claimant has stated that he was a labourer in goods auto. 7. Perusal of Insurance Policy (copy of which was made available by learned counsel for appellant) indicates that seating capacity of vehicle is ‘two’ which would reflect that another passenger apart from driver would be covered. Since it is a goods vehicle other passenger could only be employee. While passing impugned award, Tribunal has taken note of contention and held Insurer failed to establish claimant was unauthorized passenger. Said view appears to be in accordance with law and is not established to be contrary to material on record. Hence, I do not find any justification to entertain appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2771 MFA No. 200922 of 2020 8. Appeal is dismissed at stage of admission. Amount in deposit be transmitted to Tribunal for disbursal. Balance amount be deposited within a period of eight weeks. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NJ/SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 Ct: Vk