- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19106-DB MFA No. 9556 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9556 OF 2017(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUDHAMANI, W/O LATE SUDHAKAR R., NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 2. KUM. RIDHI SHREE, D/O. LATE SUDHAKAR R, NOW AGED ABOUT 03 YEARS, 3. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, S/O. LATE MUDDEGOWDA, @ KENCHEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 4. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 2ND MINOR APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER, 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN. ALL ARE RESIDING AT: VIRUPASANDRA VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19106-DB MFA No. 9556 of 2017 AND: 1. SYED LIYAKATH, S/O. SYED BASHEER, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT KAMATH KUPPARAHALLI VILLAGE, MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44-45, 4TH FLOOR, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 15.04.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.287/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ADDL., MACT., CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19106-DB MFA No. 9556 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M NADAF) This appeal is by the Claimants on a short challenge against the Judgment and award dated 16.08.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C & Addl. Member Accident Claims Tribunal, Channapattana, Ramanagar District (for short, 'the Tribunal') in M.V.C No.287/2015. 2. The Tribunal under the impugned Judgment and Award partly allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.33,40,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and directed respondent No.1 - owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation and dismissed the petition against respondent No.2 - Insurer. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. Heard, Sri.Gopal Krishna.N, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants and Sri.O.Mahesh, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19106-DB MFA No. 9556 of 2017 learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Insurer. Vide order dated 15.04.2021, notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. 5. On short point, Sri.Gopal Krishna.N, submits that the Tribunal though awarded compensation of Rs.33,40,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, saddled the entire liability on respondent No.1 - owner of the vehicle on the premise that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license. He further submits that the accident occurred on 13.02.2015 which was prior to amendment. The deceased was a third party proceeding on his Hero Honda motorcycle and the accident caused due to rash and actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-04-D-0986 insured with respondent No.2 - Insurer. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in PAPPU DEO YADAV VS. NARESH KUMAR AND - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19106-DB MFA No. 9556 of 2017 OTHERS1, wherein it has been held that in any claim where right of the third party involved, even in the absence of driving licence or whether there is any license or no license or valid or effective license, which amounts to violation of policy condition, the insurer is primarily liable to satisfy the compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. With this, he sought to allow the appeal to this extent by modifying the judgment with respect to liability to pay compensation. 6. Sri.O.Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer, in contrast with all vehemence submits that, no license with respect to the driver of the vehicle has been produced before the Tribunal. The Insurer has issued notice to the owner as well as the driver as per Ex.R4 and R5, however they have not discharged their statutory duty by submitting the license to the Insurer upon receipt of the notice. Though respondent No.1 appeared before the Tribunal and filed statement of objection, denying the 1 (2022) 13 SCC 790 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19106-DB MFA No. 9556 of 2017 contentions of respondent No.2 Insurer, neither subjected RW.1 for cross-examination nor rebutted the contentions of respondent No.2 - Insurer. Therefore, the adverse inference has been considered by the Tribunal against the owner of the vehicle, as such, the Judgment of the Tribunal fastening liability does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court and sought to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard the rival submissions, we have perused the entire appeal paper and the Trial Court record. 8. The only point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the Tribunal is right in exonerating the Insurer absolutely from paying compensation? 9. Our answer to the above point for consideration is partly in the affirmative, for the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19106-DB MFA No. 9556 of 2017 REASONS 10. The lis is no more res-integra. The Apex Court in the decision reported in PAPPU YADAV supra, held that wherever there is a claim petition by a third party for any violation of conditions of policy with respect to driving license, in view of contract, the Insurer is primarily liable to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In that view of the matter, we answer the point for consideration partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The Judgment and award dated 16.08.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C & Addl. Member Accident Claims Tribunal, Channapattana, Ramanagar District (for short, 'the Tribunal') in M.V.C No.287/2015 is modified to the extent of absolute exoneration, holding that respondent No.2 - Insurer is primarily liable to pay - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19106-DB MFA No. 9556 of 2017 compensation with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. (iii) Respondent No.2 - Insurer shall primarily deposit the entire award amount along with accrued interest as per the order of the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. (iv) The apportionment and disbursement is as per the order passed by the Tribunal. (v) The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court record without any further delay. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for consideration, accordingly they are disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29