- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14784-DB MFA No. 7078 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7078 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: LEGAL MANAGER, SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.3/1, RUKMINI TOWERS, PLATFORM ROAD, DIAGONALLY, OPP. TO MANTRIMALL, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRUTHUNJAYA HIREMATH, S/O. CHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 36, PALA, MUNDGODU TALUK, UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT. 2. SHANKAR. A. L., S/O. LAKSHMAIAH, NO. 20, ARALIMARAPALYA, CHUNCHANAKUPPE POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 562 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADEESH H T., ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 12.03.2026, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14784-DB MFA No. 7078 of 2022 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1412/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-25), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 30,67,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The insurer is in appeal calling in question the judgment and award dated 11.07.2022 in MVC.No.1412/2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-25) ('Tribunal' for short). 2. The Tribunal by the impugned order, fastened the liability on the Insurer to pay the compensation of Rs.30,67,500/- along with 6% interest. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14784-DB MFA No. 7078 of 2022 3. Heard Sri.Pradeep.B, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer and Sri.Jagadeesh.H.T, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 taken through paper publication and the same is held-sufficient. 4. Sri. Pradeep.B, on a short point submits that the insurance policy was issued against premium paid under a cheque. The cheque issued towards the premium amount when presented dishonoured and returned with a shara 'funds insufficient'. The Insurance policy issued was subject to clearance of cheque issued towards premium amount, which is a conditional precedent for the issuance of insurance policy. In view of dishonouring of the cheque, the policy entered between the insurer and the insured gets cancelled automatically. Since there is no insurance policy in existence, there cannot be any liability to pay the compensation by the insurer. On this Sri.Pradeep, sought to allow the appeal and set aside the liability fastened on the Insurer. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14784-DB MFA No. 7078 of 2022 5. Sri. Jagadeesh H.T, learned counsel appearing for the claimant though tried to impress upon us that he being the third party and no notice has been issued regarding dishonour of the cheque and the Insurer be made liable to pay the compensation with a liberty to recover the same from the both insured, however, we are not convinced with the submissions of Sri.Jagadeesh. The reason being there is no policy in existence which would bind the insurer to satisfy the contract. It is not the case that there is a violation of policy conditions. It is a case wherein the premium which was paid by way of cheque was not realised due to dishonour of the cheque, which goes to the root of the case. In that view of the matter, we are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14784-DB MFA No. 7078 of 2022 ii. The judgment and award dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-25) in MVC.No.1412/2018, fastening the liability on the Insurer is set aside. However, since the offending vehicle belongs to respondent No.2 who is the owner of the vehicle, the liability is fastened on respondent No.2 to make good the amount awarded by the Tribunal. iii. The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant/insurer on proper identification. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7