- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27562-DB MFA No. 5970 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K M.F.A. NO. 5970 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.25/1, 2ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO.2, SHANKARANAYARANA BUILDING, NO.1, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001, NOW AT NO.32, GROUND FLOOR, A.C.R. TOWERS RESIDENCY ROAD, ASHOKNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 023, BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER (L). …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B PRADEEP, ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ H. S., ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. AMMAOJAMMA NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, W/O LATE BEVINA HALLAPPA. 2. RAKSHITHA B.R., NOW AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, D/O LATE BEVINA HALLAPPA. 3. RACHITHA, NOW AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, D/O LATE BEVINA HALLAPPA. 4. VIDYA B., NOW AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27562-DB MFA No. 5970 of 2023 D/O LATE BEVINA HALLAPPA. RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AMMOJAMMA AS NATURAL GUARDIAN 5. GOVINDAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA 6. SAVITHRAMMA NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O GOVINDAPPA. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MUTHYALAMMA TEMPLE STREET PAVAGADA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 7. SRI. THIPPESWAMY, MAJOR (AGE NOT MENTIONED IN CLAIM PETITION) S/O RAMAPPA K.H., R/O KONANKURIKE VILLAGE, NIDGAL HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADV. FOR R1-R6 SRI ROSHAN M.C., ADV. FOR R7 R2-R4 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.5658/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU SCCH-7, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.31,05,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSITING OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN THE COURT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27562-DB MFA No. 5970 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The insurer is in appeal, questioning saddling of entire liability on it, with a direction to pay compensation under judgment and award dated 16.06.2023 in MVC No.5658/2021 on the file of IX Additional Small Causes Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”). 2. The brief facts of the case which are necessary for deciding the present appeal are that: The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the accidental death of Bevina Hallappa, husband of the first claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.04.2021 involving motor cycle bearing No.KA-64/Q- 2842 and another motor cycle bearing No.KA-64/S-8839. It is stated that, prior to the accident, the deceased was doing Hotel business and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. and it is stated that the deceased was aged about 35 years as on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27562-DB MFA No. 5970 of 2023 the date of accident. The claimants stated that they were totally depending on the income of the deceased. 3. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2 Insurance Company appeared and filed its objections, whereas respondent No.1 placed exparte. 4. Respondent No.2-Insurer though admitted insurance policy, denied the entire claim petition averments and particularly contended that the liability would be subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy. The insurer also contended that the rider of the insured motorcycle had no valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of accident, as such, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the claimants. 5. Before the Tribunal, claimant No.1, wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 apart from marking the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On behalf of the Insurer, an Official of the Insurance Company was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27562-DB MFA No. 5970 of 2023 examined as R.W.1 and insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. 6. The Tribunal on appreciation of material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.31,05,000/- on the following heads, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, by saddling the entire liability on the appellant-Insurance Company: Towards loss of dependency Rs.28,35,000-00 Towards consortium Rs. 2,40,000-00 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000-00 Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000-00 Total Rs.31,05,000-00 The Insurance Company is before this Court, questioning the saddling the liability on it, without properly considering the contentions of the insurer that the rider of the motorcycle which was insured with them had no valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of accident. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27562-DB MFA No. 5970 of 2023 7. Heard learned counsel Sri.B.Pradeep for learned counsel Sri.H.S.Lingaraju, for the appellant/insurer and Sri.R.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the entire appeal papers including the certified copies of the records made available by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company during the course of hearing. 8. Learned counsel Sri.B.Pradeep for insurer would contend that the Tribunal committed a grave error in saddling the liability on the insurer/appellant herein. He submits that the insurer mainly contended that the rider of the motorcycle which was registered with them had no valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of accident. As such, he submits that as there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Tribunal could not have fastened the liability on the insurer. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal having given a specific finding that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27562-DB MFA No. 5970 of 2023 motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-64/S-8836, respondent No.7 herein could not have saddled the liability on the insurer. When the rider of the motorcycle which is insured with them had no valid and effective Driving Licence, the insurer would not become liable to indemnify the claimants and it is for the owner of the vehicle to indemnify the claimants. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant would pray for exonerating the insurer and pray for allowing the appeal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Shashidhara appearing for respondents/claimants would support the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal by submitting that whenever, it is a case of no licence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that it would be a case of pay and recovery. Learned counsel would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v/s SWARAN SINGH reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297; PAPPU AND OTHERS v/s VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27562-DB MFA No. 5970 of 2023 reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208 along with latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.AVANATHI AND OTHERS v/s P.VENKATESAN AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No.1175/2025) to contend that in the facts and circumstances, it would be a case of pay and recovery. Thus, he would pray for passing appropriate order. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal papers including the certified copy of the documents made available by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, the following point would arise for our consideration: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-insurer has made out a case for pay and recovery? 11. Answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons: The accident that occurred on 13.04.2021 involving two motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-64/Q-2842 and another motorcycle bearing No.KA-64/S-8839 and the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27562-DB MFA No. 5970 of 2023 accidental death of one Bevina Hallappa, husband of the first claimant is not in dispute in the present appeal. There is no dispute with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the only dispute is with regard to saddling liability on the appellant- insurer. 12. The appellant-insurer in the statement of objections filed before the Tribunal has specifically contended that respondent No.1 before the Tribunal/owner of the offending motorcycle which is insured with the appellant- insurer was not having valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of accident. Further, R.W.1 in his evidence has also deposed that the rider of the offending motorcycle had no valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of accident. Ex.P.7 is the charge sheet filed against the said rider. In the evidence of R.W.1, he has made it clear that notice was issued to respondent No.1 to produce the licence and he has failed to produce the same. In the said circumstances, it is to be held that respondent - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27562-DB MFA No. 5970 of 2023 No.1/rider of the offending motorcycle had no valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of accident. Further, the Tribunal on consideration of material on record has specifically given a finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-64/S-8839 i.e., respondent No.1 therein. When there is a finding that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent riding of respondent No.1 and when he was not possessing the valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of accident, the liability cannot be fastened on the insurer of the motorcycle of respondent No.1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of SWARAN SINGH, PAPPU AND AVANTHI (supra) has made it clear that it is for the insurer to pay the compensation at the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle which was insured with them. The above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court would make it clear that when a vehicle is driven by an unauthorized person - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27562-DB MFA No. 5970 of 2023 having no Driving Licence, it is for the insurer to pay compensation at the fist instance and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and for the reasons recorded above, we modify the award dated 16.06.2023 in MVC No.5658/2021 on the file of IX Additional Small Causes Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, directing the appellant-insurer to pay the compensation awarded under the judgment and award in appeal, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the motorcycle i.e., respondent No.7 herein. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed-in- part. The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal . - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27562-DB MFA No. 5970 of 2023 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance award amount within six weeks from today, before the Tribunal. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9