- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4312-DB MFA No. 4036 of 2023 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 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.4036 OF 2023(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CITY TRACE CENTER, B. N. ROAD, OPP SUBURBAN BUS STAND, MYSURU-570 001, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT No.32, GROUND FLOOR, A.C.R TOWERS, RESIDENCY ROAD, ASHOKNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 023, BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER (L). …APPELLANT (BY SRI LINGARAJ H. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANJULA, NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O LATE LINGARAJU, 2. HARSHITA NOW AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, D/O. LATE LINGARAJU, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4312-DB MFA No. 4036 of 2023 3. MAHADEVAMMA, NOW AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, D/O. LATE LINGARAJU, RESPONDENT Nos.2 & 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT No.1 HEREIN, 4. JAYAMMA, NOW AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O. SHIVALINGEGOWDA, 5. SHIVALINGEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O. LATE SHETTYGOWDA, ALL ARE R/AT No.39, NERALE MAIN ROAD, GANESHANAGUDI VILLAGE, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114. 6. M. MAHADEVASWAMY, MAJOR, S/O. SOREKAYI MADAIAH, R/AT S.C. COLONY, KENNALU VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 435. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAGADISH BALIGA N., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 & R5; R2 & R3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1; SRI H.V. BHANUPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.02.2023 PASSED IN MVC No.381/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.26,76,920/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4312-DB MFA No. 4036 of 2023 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING 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 K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri H.S. Lingaraju, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer; Sri N. Jagadish Baliga , learned counsel for the claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri H.V. Bhanupraksh, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 2. Questioning its liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle, the insurer has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and award dated 01.02.2023 passed in MVC No.381/2020 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). 3. For brevity, parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal. 4. The claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.27,25,000/-. The claimants are the wife, children, and parents of the deceased-Lingaraju, who died in a motor vehicle - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4312-DB MFA No. 4036 of 2023 accident on 08.01.2020 at about 3.30 p.m., while he was travelling on his motorcycle. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of a lorry bearing Regn. No.KA-01- 9651(offending vehicle). It is pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.500/- per day and that the claimants were dependent on his income. 4.1 After service of notice, respondent No.1 the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2, the insurer, entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed statements of objections. Respondent No.1 contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It was further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It was also contended that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 and, therefore, the liability, if any, is required to be fastened on respondent No.2–insurer. 4.2 Respondent No.2–insurer filed its statement of objections denying the age, occupation, and income of the deceased. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and that the driver of the offending vehicle did - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4312-DB MFA No. 4036 of 2023 not possess a valid driving licence. It was further contended that the offending vehicle was insured only with effect from 09.01.2020 and, therefore, as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not covered under a valid policy of insurance. 4.3 Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and one other witness as PW.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. The owner of the offending vehicle was examined as RW.1, and an official of the insurance company was examined as RW.2. Exs. R1 to R7 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 4.4 The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal further held that the policy of insurance was purchased upon payment of premium on 08.01.2020 during office hours and that such purchase was prior to the occurrence of the accident. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the insurer is liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.1. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.26,76,920/- and directed the insurer to indemnify the liability of respondent No.1. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4312-DB MFA No. 4036 of 2023 5. Sri H.S. Lingaraju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant–insurer, submits that no policy of insurance was in force at the time of the accident. Learned counsel contends that the policy marked at Ex.R1 was issued only after the occurrence of the accident. Referring to the insurance ledger, learned counsel submits that the policy was issued at about 7.00 p.m. on 08.01.2020, whereas the accident occurred at about 3.30 p.m. on the same day. It is further submitted that the policy at Ex.R1 would come into force only with effect from 09.01.2020 at 00.00 hours. Learned counsel contends that even assuming the policy was issued on 08.01.2020, it would take effect only from midnight. Therefore, it is submitted that as on the date and time of the accident, the policy was not in force and the insurer was not liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.1–owner of the offending vehicle. 6. Sri H.V. Bhanuprakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6–owner of the offending vehicle, submits that the premium was paid to an agent authorised by the insurer. It is submitted that the agent, in turn, remitted the premium amount to the insurer and that the policy was accordingly - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4312-DB MFA No. 4036 of 2023 purchased. Learned counsel contends that since the premium amount towards purchase of the policy was paid much prior to the occurrence of the accident, the liability stood covered notwithstanding that the policy was issued at a later point of time. It is further submitted that the acts of the insurer’s agent are binding on the insurer and that the policy would come into effect from the date of purchase. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the insurer. 7. Sri N. Jagadish Baliga, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, submits that, as on the date of the accident, the policy of insurance was in force, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, and consequently, the Tribunal was justified in directing the insurer to satisfy the award. In the alternative, learned counsel submits that even assuming there was any technical defect in the policy, the insurer is required to be directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4312-DB MFA No. 4036 of 2023 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on either side and perused the appeal papers. 9. The claimants and the owner of the offending vehicle have not preferred any appeal. The insurer alone is before this Court, disputing its liability on the ground that the policy of insurance was neither valid nor operative at the time of the accident. It is the specific contention of the insurer that the policy, as reflected in Annexure–R6, was issued at about 7.08 p.m. on 08.01.2020 and that the coverage would commence only from 09.01.2020. On that premise, it is contended that the insurer is not liable to indemnify respondent No.1. 10. Per contra, respondent No.6–owner of the offending vehicle contends that the policy was purchased prior to the occurrence of the accident through an authorised agent of the insurer. In support of such contention, learned counsel submits that since the policy does not reflect the exact date and time of issuance, it is required to be presumed that the policy was issued immediately upon payment of the premium. However, respondent No.6 has not produced any material evidence to substantiate this plea. Though it is contended that the policy - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4312-DB MFA No. 4036 of 2023 was purchased through the agent of the insurer, the said agent has not been examined to prove the case of respondent No.6. In the absence of any evidence to establish that the premium was paid much prior to the occurrence of the accident, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention urged on behalf of respondent No.6. There is no evidence to prove the purchase of policy before the accident. Furthermore the owner of the vehicle has failed to prove payment of premium much before the accident. Suggestion made to the witness examined on behalf of the insurer are regarding the procedure in the office. The said suggestions has not proved either payment of premium or issuance of policy before the date of accident. 11. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the policy was issued during office hours at about 10.00 a.m. and prior to the occurrence of the accident at 3.30 p.m. is wholly without any basis. The said finding is contrary to the material on record and is, therefore, unsustainable. 12. In view of the foregoing findings, the other contention urged by the learned counsel for the insurer, namely that the policy would come into effect only from 09.01.2020, does not - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4312-DB MFA No. 4036 of 2023 arise for consideration and, therefore, need not be examined in the present case. 13. Insofar as the contention urged on behalf of the claimants that the insurer ought to be directed to pay the compensation and recover the same from respondent No.6 is concerned, the same is also unsustainable. In the absence of a valid and effective policy of insurance as on the date of the accident, the insurer cannot be directed to satisfy the award and, consequently, the question of recovery from the owner of the offending vehicle does not arise for consideration. 14. In light of the above, the following; Order (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 01.02.2023 in MVC No.381/2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru, is set aside insofar as to the appellant indemnifying respondent No.6. (iii) As the offending vehicle was not covered by the Policy, respondent No.6 is liable to pay the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4312-DB MFA No. 4036 of 2023 compensation. Respondent No.6 shall deposit the compensation within six weeks. (iv) The amount in deposit shall stand transferred to the appellant on furnishing necessary details. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18