- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9408 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATHA S/O CHIKKATAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS HOUSE NO. 77/1, HOSAKOTE PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHADEVA SWAMY P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHESH S/O DESHIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO. EREGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571401. 2. THE MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GEN INS. CO. LTD NO 846, NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD AKSHAYABANDAR, KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSURU – 570023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M Y SREENIVASAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2) *** - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.253/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & JMFC, MACT, PANDAVAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.94,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT I.A.No.1/2019 1. I.A.No.1/2019 is filed by the appellant/owner, under Order XLI Rule 27, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”], seeking permission to produce two documents, (i) Registration Certificate extract and (ii) Driving Licence extract, as additional evidence. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle submits that he had even submitted the aforesaid documents including the RC Book, Insurance policy to the counsel before the learned Tribunal to file them before it. However, he learnt about the liability fastened on him, only when he received the summons in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 the execution proceedings, that the liability of the accident had been fastened on him. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that since these documents were given to his counsel in the learned Tribunal and were sufficient to show that there was a valid and existing Insurance policy and that there was no breach of the policy conditions, he could not have been made liable to pay the compensation. Thus, it is contended that the appellant/owner may be permitted to place these documents on record. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company submits that he has been unable to verify the contents of these documents. However, he states that these documents are necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the matter. 5. The record reflects that this application was filed as early as on 01.07.2019 and the Insurance Company had more than six years to verify the authenticity of these - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 documents. However, in any event, since these are certified copies obtained from the Regional Transport Authority, Mandya, and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Swaran Singh and others1, this Court finds no impediment in allowing this application. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2019 is allowed. M.F.A.No.9408/2018 6. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ owner, seeking to challenge a Judgment and Award dated 19.10.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) & JMFC, MACT, Pandavapura, in M.V.C. No.253/2009 [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”]. By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation in a sum of Rs.94,800/- along with interest at 6% per annum, fastening the liability on the appellant/owner. 1 AIR 2004 SC 1531: (2004) 3 SCC 297 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 7. Given the pendency of the matter for the last eight years and stay of the execution proceedings granted by this Court on 12.07.2019, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the matter today. 8. The brief facts are that, on 14.02.2008, at about 6:00 p.m., when the respondent No.1/claimant was returning from his School on a bicycle near Eregoudanahalli- Narayanapura Road, near Borappa Temple, a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA- 11/7527, came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and collided with the respondent No.1’s /claimant’s bicycle, due to which, the respondent No.1/claimant fell down and sustained injuries. The claimant was hospitalised initially at Pandavapura Government Hospital and later at J.S.S. Hospital, Mysuru, where he took treatment as an in-patient. 8.1. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the respondent No.1/claimant filed a claim petition, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 against the owner, being the appellant herein as well as the respondent No.2/insurer of the Goods vehicle. Both parties appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed their respective Written Statements, denying the claim of the respondent No.1/claimant. 8.2. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether petitioner proves that on 14.02.2008 at 6 PM when petitioner was returning from school in his bicycle on Eregowdanahalli - Narayanapura road near Haluborappana Temple Goods Auto bearing No.KA-11- 7527 came from backside in high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed to which petitioner sustained grievous injuries? 2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, from whom? And to what extent? 3. What order or award?” 8.3. The respondent No.1/claimant examined himself as PW-1 and his Doctor as PW-2 and got nine documents marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-9. The respondent No.2/ Insurance Company examined their Officer as RW-1 and produced Exhibit R-1, which is a copy of the Driving - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 Licence of the driver and filed their Written Statement, denying the averments made in the claim petition. 8.4. The learned Tribunal, after examining the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, awarded compensation in the following manner: HEADS OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT a) Medical expenses Rs.2,000-00 b) Pain & agony Rs.25,000-00 c) Loss of income during treatment Rs. 3,000-00 d) Loss of income due to permanent disability Rs.64,800-00 TOTAL Rs.94,800-00 9. The only challenge by the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle is on the aspect of the finding of the learned Tribunal that, the owner alone is liable to pay the compensation. 10. As stated above, this Court, has, by an order dated 20.02.2026, allowed an application-I.A.No.1/2019 for production of additional documents, which include the Driving Licence extract and the Registration Certificate extract. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 11. It is the case of the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle that there was no breach of the insurance policy by the appellant/owner of the vehicle and hence the liability ought to have been fastened on the Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company does not dispute the fact that there existed a valid insurance policy and he is also unable to dispute the documents filed. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, however, submits that the accident happened in the year 2008 and the Award was passed in year 2012, thus the appeal was only filed after a substantial delay. Thus, he submits that the appellant/owner should be put to some terms in respect of the delay. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that the respondent No.1/claimant was an 18 year old boy. He was going to School, at the time of the accident. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 14. The learned Tribunal, after examining the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has found that the Driving Licence extract showed that the driver did not possess a valid Driving licence to drive a Goods vehicle. The relevant extract of the Impugned Order is set out below: “Even if insurance company admitted the insurance policy it contended that driver of the goods auto did not possess valid driving license. RW1 deposed that as the driver of the goods auto had possessed license to drive LMV (NT), Light passenger vehicle and LMV cab he had no license to drive goods auto. Respondent No.2 got marked a document at Ex.R-1 which is the copy of driving license of the driver which also shows that driver in question did not possess drive goods vehicle which comes within category of transport vehicle therefore, the owner of the vehicle, i.e. respondent No.1 in question alone is liable to pay compensation to petitioner with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment of entire compensation amount. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered as above.” [Emphasis Supplied] 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue that arises for consideration before this Court is: “Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle, instead of the insurer?” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 16. This Court in the case of Smt. Lakshmamma & others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another2 has after examining the law on the liability of the Insurance Company in case of a fake, invalid or non- existent Driving Licence has held as follows: 12. The law on the liability of the Insurance Company in the case of a fake, invalid or non-existent driving licence is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Swaran Singh And Others3, while examining the defence of the insurance company that the offending vehicle was not driven by an authorized person and or a person not having a valid driving licence held that it is obligatory on the part of the Respondent/Insurance Company to substantiate the defence and a mere plea would not suffice. The relevant extract is set out below: “84. We have analysed the relevant provisions of the said Act in terms whereof a motor vehicle must be driven by a person having a driving licence. The owner of a motor vehicle in terms of Section 5 of the Act has a responsibility to see that no vehicle is driven except by a person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act. In a case, therefore, where the driver of the vehicle, admittedly, did not hold any licence and the same was allowed consciously to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the insurer is entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid liability. The matter, however, may be different where a disputed question of fact arises as to whether the driver had a valid licence or where the owner of the vehicle 2 MFA No.2839/2019 dt.31.01.2026 3 2004 (3) SCC 297 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 committed a breach of the terms of the contract of insurance as also the provisions of the Act by consciously allowing any person to drive a vehicle who did not have a valid driving licence. In a given case, the driver of the vehicle may not have any hand in it at all e.g. a case where an accident takes place owing to a mechanical fault or vis major. (See Jitendra Kumar [(2003) 6 SCC 420 : JT (2003) 5 SC 538]. 88. Section 10 of the Act provides for forms and contents of licences to drive. The licence has to be granted in the prescribed form. Thus, a licence to drive a light motor vehicle would entitle the holder there to drive the vehicle falling within that class or description. 89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10. They are “goods carriage”, “heavy goods vehicle”, “heavy passenger motor vehicle”, “invalid carriage”, “light motor vehicle”, “maxi-cab”, “medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger motor vehicle”, “motor- cab”, “motorcycle”, “omnibus”, “private service vehicle”, “semi-trailer”, “tourist vehicle”, “tractor”, “trailer” and “transport vehicle”. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal as a person possessing a driving licence for “motorcycle - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 without gear”, [sic may be driving a vehicle] for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for “light motor vehicle” is found to be driving a “maxi-cab”, “motor-cab” or “omnibus” for which he has no licence. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. 90. We have construed and determined the scope of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties. 91. On all pleas of breach of licensing conditions taken by the insurer, it would be open to the Tribunal to adjudicate the claim and decide inter se liability of insurer and insured; although where such adjudication is likely to entail undue delay in decision of the claim of the victim, the Tribunal in its discretion may relegate the insurer to seek its remedy of reimbursement from the insured in the civil court. 92. It may be true as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a fake or forged licence is as good as no licence but the question herein, as - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 noticed hereinbefore, is whether the insurer must prove that the owner was guilty of the wilful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance. In Lehru case [(2003) 3 SCC 338 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 614] the matter has been considered in some detail. We are in general agreement with the approach of the Bench but we intend to point out that the observations made therein must be understood to have been made in the light of the requirements of the law in terms whereof the insurer is to establish wilful breach on the part of the insured and not for the purpose of its disentitlement from raising any defence or for the owners to be absolved from any liability whatsoever. We would be dealing in some detail with this aspect of the matter a little later. 93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14.] A learner's licence is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that when a vehicle is being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not “duly licensed” resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a learner's licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learner's licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act. 94. The provisions contained in the said Act provide also for grant of driving licence which is otherwise a learner's licence. Sections 3(2) and 6 of the Act provide for restriction in the matter of grant of driving licence, Section 7 deals with such restrictions on granting of learner's licence. Sections 8 and 9 provide for the manner and conditions for grant of driving licence. Section 15 provides for renewal of driving licence. Learner's licences are granted under - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 the Rules framed by the Central Government or the State Governments in exercise of their rule-making power. Conditions are attached to the learner's licences granted in terms of the statute. A person holding learner's licence would, thus, also come within the purview of “duly licensed” as such a licence is also granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is now a well-settled principle of law that rules validly framed become part of the statute. Such rules are, therefore, required to be read as a part of the main enactment. It is also a well-settled principle of law that for the interpretation of statute an attempt must be made to give effect to all provisions under the rule. No provision should be considered as surplusage. [Emphasis Supplied] 12.1. The Swaran Singh case crystallized these findings by holding that merely stating that the driver of a vehicle did not have a licence or had a invalid or fake licence by itself is not enough to avoid liability by an Insurance Company. They must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle. Unless the breach is so fundamental that it has contributed to the cause of the accident, the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability. The relevant extract is set out below: “110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition, eg disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in Sub- section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time, (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof where for would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of the case. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act. (vii) The question as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver, (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case……” [Emphasis Supplied] 13. In the case of Pappu and Others while relying on a judgment of Swaran Singh's case has held that in order for an insurance company to avoid its liability towards the insured, it has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence or failed to exercise reasonable care in a matter of fulfilling the condition of policy regarding use of vehicles by a licensed driver. It has further been held that the mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver at the relevant times is not in themselves defences available to the insured against either the insured or the third party. With a view to avoid liability, the insurance company must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle and the burden of proof would be on them. The relevant extract of Pappu and Others’ case is set out below: “9. On the basis of these pleadings, the matter proceeded before the Tribunal. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 owner of the vehicle did not produce any evidence in support of his plea taken in the Written Statement that the offending vehicle was plied by an authorised person having a valid driving permit. All that respondent No.1 did was to produce a driving licence purportedly of one Joginder Singh. The Tribunal adverted to the said driving licence but found that nowhere the owner of the vehicle has asserted that the Truck No.DIL-5955 was in fact driven by said Joginder Singh at the time of the accident. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issue No.3 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 and answered the same in favour of the Insurance Company as follows: “Issue No.3: Whether the Truck No. DIL-5955 was not being driven by a person having valid and effective driving licence?” XXX XXX XXX 10. This view taken by the Tribunal was assailed before the High Court by the claimants. No other contention was raised before the High Court except about the liability of the Insurance Company. The High Court, after analysing the record, negatived the said contention in the following words: “5. The only question which has been raised before this Court is, whether Insurance Company has rightly been held not liable by holding that Truck No. DIL 5955 was not being driven by a person having valid licence. This Court has to consider, whether findings recorded in respect of issue no.3 is correct or not. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute that neither any pleadings nor evidence have been led before Tribunal to suggest or to tell, as a matter of fact, that aforesaid truck was being driven by Sri Joginder Singh. It is not in dispute that owner of aforesaid vehicle produced driving licence which was in the name of Sri Joginder Singh but at no stage it is pleaded or brought on record before Tribunal that Sri Joginder Singh was the person who was driving aforesaid Truck. XXX XXX XXX 16. The next question is: whether in the fact situation of this case the insurance company can be and ought to be directed to pay the claim amount, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.1)? 17. This issue has been answered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). In that - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 case, it was contended by the insurance company that once the defence taken by the insurer is accepted by the Tribunal, it is bound to discharge the insurer and fix the liability only on the owner and/or the driver of the vehicle. However, this Court held that even if the insurer succeeds in establishing its defence, the Tribunal or the Court can direct the insurance company to pay the award amount to the claimant(s) and, in turn, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The three- Judge Bench, after analysing the earlier decisions on the point, held that there was no reason to deviate from the said well-settled principle. In paragraph 107, the Court then observed thus: “107. We may, however, hasten to add that the Tribunal and the court must, however, exercise their jurisdiction to issue such a direction upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case and in the event such a direction has been issued, despite arriving at a finding of fact to the effect that the insurer has been able to establish that the insured has committed a breach of contract of insurance as envisaged under sub- clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section BHH149 of the Act, the insurance company shall be entitled to realize the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle, as the case may be, in execution of the same award having regard to the provisions of Sections 165 and 168 of the Act. However, in the event, having regard to the limited scope of inquiry in the proceedings before the Tribunal it has not been able to do so, the insurance company may initiate a separate action therefor against the owner or the driver of the vehicle or both, as the case may be. Those exceptional cases may arise when the evidence becomes available to or comes to the notice of the insurer at a subsequent stage or for one reason or the other, the insurer was not..." XXX XXX XXX - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 17. The learned counsel for the appellant/owner contended that the Driving Licence of the driver reflects that he had a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV)(NT) but since the laden weight of the goods vehicle that he was driving is less than 7,500 kgs., the liability ought to have been fastened on the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 18. In this regard, it is apposite to set out Section 2(21) and Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, below: “2(21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7500] kilograms;” “10. Form and contents of licences to drive. – (1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:- (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) adapted vehicle]; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description.” - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 19. The Driving Licence extract produced by the appellant/owner shows that the driver was authorized to drive a Light Motor Vehicle, but non-transport category. Concededly, the Driving Licence produced before this Court does show that the driver was authorized to drive a Light Motor Vehicle Transport vehicle on that date. Accordingly, and in view of the above discussion, the Impugned Award is liable to be modified. 20. The Appeal is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified, holding the respondent No.2/Insurance Company to make payment of the Award amount, in accordance with law, within eight weeks from today. (ii) In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, this Court deems it apposite to direct the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10732 MFA No. 9408 of 2018 appellant/owner to forfeit its statutory amount [Rs.25,000/-] in favour of the Insurance Company. (iii) The remaining amounts deposited by the appellant/owner shall be released to him by the learned Tribunal upon filing of an appropriate application before the Tribunal. (iv) The rest of the Impugned Award remains unaltered. (v) The registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (vi) The registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records. (vii) No order as to costs. (viii) All pending applications stand closed. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BMV*/ KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA