- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4341-DB MFA No. 2518 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND M.F.A. NO.2518/2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: LEGAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO. 144, 2ND FLOOR, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. D N BHAGYAMMA W/O. LATE MADDIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2. NAGAVENI D/O. MADDIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. SUJATHA. S. M. D/O. LATE MADDIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 4. SUMA D/O. LATE MADDIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT SAKAVANDLAPALLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, THIMMAMPALLI (P), CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 207. Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4341-DB MFA No. 2518 of 2024 5. SMT. SADUM KAVITHA D/O. SADUM LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.7-23, MAIN ROAD, YELLAMMA VEEDI, NALLACHERUVU, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515 551. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.N. NARASAREDDY, ADV. FOR SMT. INDUMATHI S. R., ADV. FOR R1 TO R4 SRI THOSHITH RAJ S., ADV. FOR SRI BHASKAR BABU H.J., ADV. FOR R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.4454/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-16), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.18,61,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. 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 K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The appellant-insurer is before this Court in appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, questioning the saddling of liability under judgment and award dated 31.01.2024 in MVC No.4454/2021 on the file of Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru. 2. Brief facts of the case are that: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4341-DB MFA No. 2518 of 2024 The claimants – wife and children of one Late Maddireddy in a motor vehicle accident filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation for the accidental death that took place on 09.09.2021 involving two-wheeler bearing No.AP-39-CG-4063. The claimants stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month by milk vending and agriculture works and the deceased was aged 54 years as on the date of accident. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel. The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company filed its written statement, whereas respondent No.1- owner of the two-wheeler did not choose to file written statement. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company in its objections denied the claim petition averments. Further, it is sated that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and highly disproportionate and also denied the involvement of the two-wheeler. It also contended that the rider of the two-wheeler was not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4341-DB MFA No. 2518 of 2024 having valid driving license at the time of accident. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The claimants in support of their case, examined claimant No.2-daughter of the deceased as PW1 and another eyewitness as PW2 apart from marking documents as Exhibits P1 to P12. The respondents examined RW1- Insurance company’s official and got marked documents as Exhibits R1 and R2. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the material on record awarded a compensation of Rs.18,65,100/- on the following heads with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, saddling the liability on respondent No.2- Insurance Company: Sl. No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.16,33,500-00 2. Loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium Rs.1,92,000-00 3. Loss of estate Rs.18,000-00 4. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000-00 Total Rs.18,61,500-00 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4341-DB MFA No. 2518 of 2024 The insurance company is in appeal questioning the saddling of liability and it has not questioned the quantum of compensation awarded. 3. Heard Sri. Pradeep B, learned counsel for appellant – Insurance Company, learned counsel Sri. D N Narasareddy learned counsel on behalf of learned counsel Smt. Indumathi S appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri. Bhaskar Babu H, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Perused the entire appeal papers. 4. Learned counsel Sri. Pradeep B, submits that the Insurance Company admits the policy and the policy was valid as on the date of accident. However, he submits that the rider of the motor vehicle had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. He submitted that the owner of two-wheeler/respondent No.5 appeared before the Tribunal. However, he failed to file any objection statement. Further, he submits that no appeal is also filed by the owner and he has accepted the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Learned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4341-DB MFA No. 2518 of 2024 counsel would submit that when the insurance company had taken a contention that the rider of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, then it was for the owner of the vehicle to prove or establish that the rider of the two-wheeler had valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. For that, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal could not have shifted burden on the Insurance Company by observing that the contention is not substantiated by any documentary or oral evidence of the Insurance Company. Moreover, he submits that charge sheet has been filed against the rider of the motorcycle, there also the owner of the motorcycle has failed to produce driving license. Thus, he would submit that the liability fastened on the insurer be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- claimants would submit that when the policy was in existence and policy was valid and effective as on the date of accident, it is for the insurer to indemnify the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4341-DB MFA No. 2518 of 2024 compensation. However, he contends that in the facts and circumstances, it could be pay and recovery. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as follows: “Whether the Tribunal is justified in saddling the liability on the appellant-insurer?” The answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: 7. The accident that took place on 09.09.2021 involving two-wheeler bearing No.AP-39-CG-4063 and the accidental death of one Maddireddy – husband of first claimant, is not in dispute in this appeal. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. Moreover, the claimants or the owner of the vehicle have not preferred any appeal. The appellant – insurer is before this Court questioning the saddling of liability on insurer. It is a fact - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4341-DB MFA No. 2518 of 2024 that the driver of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. The Insurance Company in its objection statement filed before the Tribunal had taken a specific contention that the rider of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. It is to be noted that respondent No.1-owner of the offending two-wheeler appeared before the Tribunal through his counsel and failed to file any objection and to participate in the further proceedings. The Tribunal without examining as to whether the rider of the motorcycle had valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, with an observation that the Insurer has not substantiated it by producing any documentary or oral evidence, saddled the liability on the insurer which is wholly erroneous. It was for the owner who had appeared before the Tribunal to establish that the rider of the motorcycle had valid driving license as on the date of accident when insurer had taken a specific contention that the rider of motorcycle had no valid and effective driving - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4341-DB MFA No. 2518 of 2024 license. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that as on the date of accident, valid and effective insurance policy was in force in respect of the two-wheeler in question. It is a case of no license by the rider of the motorcycle. 8. In the above circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PAPPU AND OTHERS vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER, AIR 2018 SC 592 and a Full Bench decision of this Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. YALLAVVA W/O YAMANAPPA DHARNAKERI ILR 2020 KAR 2239. have held that wherever it is a case of no license to drive the vehicle, it would be a case of pay and recovery. 9. By following the above said two decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant-Insurance Company shall be directed to pay compensation to the claimants at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the respondent No.5-owner of the two-wheeler. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4341-DB MFA No. 2518 of 2024 With the above modification, the appeal stands disposed of. The insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount within six weeks and the Insurer is at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.5. The amount in deposit is permitted to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE BSV CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18