- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010134522017 NC: 2026:KHC:39839 MFA No. 8907 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8907 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD UNIT NO.101, 1ST FLOOR, MYSORE TRADE CENTRE OPP KSRTC BUS STAND B N ROAD, MYSORE-570001 REP BY RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD, BANGALORE -560001 REP BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL. APPELLANT (BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUMARI RAKSHITHA D/O MAHADEVA NAIK AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, R/AT VEERAIAHANA PURA CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK NOW AT C/O GURU SHANTHAPPA CHALAKAVADI VILLAGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571440 Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010134522017 NC: 2026:KHC:39839 MFA No. 8907 of 2017 MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT SUNITHA BAI. 2. SRI IYAM PERUMAL S/O RANGASWAMY MAJOR NO.28/25 KADUMAN KUTTAI AMMA PETTAI BHAVANI TALUK 638301 ERODE DISTRICT TAMILNADU. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. GOPAL KRISHNA AND SRI. JAGADISH G KUMBAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.246/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC & MACT, KOLLEGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,03,200/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION AND ETC,. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by respondent No.2/insurance company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 30.08.2017 passed in MVC No.246/2015 on the file of the learned Senior Civil - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010134522017 NC: 2026:KHC:39839 MFA No. 8907 of 2017 Judge and MACT, Kollegal, seeking for enhancement of compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The injured/claimant met with an accident on 04.06.2015 and filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.12,80,000/-. Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.2,03,200/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of appeal till realization. Aggrieved by the said order insurance company preferred appeal and mainly contended that accident occurred due to the rash and negligence riding of the rider of the motorcycle/father of the claimant, but Police have filed false case against the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN- 36-AU-4027. The Tribunal without considering spot mahazar, IMV report and damages to the vehicle fixed contributory negligence on the insurance company. The Tribunal ought to have fixed 80% of the contributory negligence on the part of - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010134522017 NC: 2026:KHC:39839 MFA No. 8907 of 2017 father of the claimant and the compensation granted is excessive. CW1 doctor assessed the disability as 25%. The petitioner was aged 80 years, the amounts granted by the Tribunal are excessive. It is further stated that, RW.1 is the officer of the insurance company, he stated that rider of the motorcycle was having only learner's license at the time of accident and he was not accompanied by driving license. Ex.R3 is the learner's license. Hence, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 4. It is stated that there is no dispute regarding the fact that R1 is having a learner's license and the copy of the same is also filed under Ex.R3. Even learner's license can be considered as a proper license as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V.s Swaran Singh1. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and they are at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 5. In the result, the following: 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010134522017 NC: 2026:KHC:39839 MFA No. 8907 of 2017 ORDER i) Therefore, appeal is allowed-in-part. ii) Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.2,03,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order. iii) On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. iv) Insurance companies is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law. v) The amount in deposit is to be transferred to the MACT. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16