- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6038-DB MFA No. 5051 of 2025 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.5051 OF 2025(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. GROVER FLEETS, 1ST FLOOR No. 785, G.T.ROAD, SHAHABAD, MARKANDA, KURUKSHETHRA, HARIYANA-136135, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. HARI GROVER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI H. S. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., No.2951, 2ND FLOOR, J.L.B. ROAD, CHAMUDIPURAM, MYSORE CITY. 2. SMT. SHOBHARANI N., W/O LATE A. B. SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. MR. S. DAYANANDA, S/O LATE A. B. SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6038-DB MFA No. 5051 of 2025 4. S. LAKSMI, D/O LATE A.B. SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 5. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE BANDIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT V. V. NAGARA, PANDAVAPURA R. S., PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH KAMATH B. R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SREENIVASAN M. Y., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2022 PASSED IN MVC No.409/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.18,42,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 7 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6038-DB MFA No. 5051 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri H.S. Prashanth, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri B.R. Venkatesh Kamath, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri Sreenivasn M.Y., learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5. 2. The parties herein are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal in MVC No.409/2021, for the sake of convenience. 3. Respondent No.1, the owner of the lorry, is before this Court in appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 01.10.2022 passed in MVC No.409/2021 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). 4. The claimants are the wife, children, and mother of A.B. Swamy (deceased), who succumbed to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident involving a motorbike bearing Reg.No.KA-11/X-0975 and a lorry bearing Reg.No.HR-65/A- 8552 (offending vehicle). The accident occurred on 17.01.2021 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6038-DB MFA No. 5051 of 2025 at about 3.40 p.m., when the deceased was riding the motorbike with a pillion rider. It is pleaded that, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, it dashed against the motorbike from behind, causing the rider and the pillion rider to fall onto the road, whereupon the offending vehicle ran over them. It is further pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a driver and, in addition, was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from agricultural activities and milk vending. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident is stated to be 45 years. 4.1 Upon service of notice, the second respondent– insurer entered appearance and filed its statement of objections, denying the averments made in the claim petition and contending that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, and therefore, the insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured. Notice was duly served on the first respondent, the owner of the vehicle; however, he remained absent and was placed ex parte. Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW2 and produced documents marked as Exs.P1 to P24. On behalf of respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6038-DB MFA No. 5051 of 2025 No.2, RW1 was examined and documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3. In view of the death of both the rider and the pillion rider, the claim petitions were clubbed together. The Tribunal recorded common evidence and disposed of the claim petitions by a common judgment. 4.2 Insofar as the claim petition in MVC No.409/2021 is concerned, the Tribunal, in the absence of proof of income, assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month and added 10% towards future prospects, considering that the deceased was aged 51 years. The Tribunal deducted one-fourth of the income towards personal and living expenses. Compensation was also awarded under the conventional heads, namely loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. 4.3 The Tribunal, upon noticing that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle had not been proved, held the owner of the vehicle liable. It further recorded that a charge sheet had been filed against the owner of the offending vehicle and that respondent No.1–owner had not come forward to establish that the driver possessed a valid and effective - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6038-DB MFA No. 5051 of 2025 driving licence. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal held respondent No.1 liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also considered the issue of “pay and recovery” and, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu and others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another [(2018) 3 SCC 208], directed the insurer to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner, as the existence of a valid insurance policy was admitted. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,42,500/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 5. Sri H.S. Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1–appellant herein, submits that the owner of the vehicle had entrusted the lorry to a driver holding a valid and effective driving licence. It is contended that the said driver, in turn, permitted the cleaner to drive the lorry, during which time the accident occurred. It is further contended that, at the time of the accident, one Sri Joginder was driving the offending vehicle and that he possessed a valid and effective driving licence. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6038-DB MFA No. 5051 of 2025 5.1 In support of the said submission, learned counsel contends that the challan issued for the traffic violation was paid in the name of Sri Joginder, which, according to him, indicates that Sri Joginder was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. It is further submitted that the appellant was not afforded sufficient opportunity to place his case before the Tribunal and, on that ground, seeks remand of the matter. Learned counsel also contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and further submits that, since the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence, the direction issued by the Tribunal for pay and recovery is unsustainable in law. 6. Sri Venkatesh Kamath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1–insurer, submits that notice was duly and adequately served on respondent No.1 and that, despite such service, respondent No.1 consciously chose not to participate in the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the charge sheet specifically records that the cleaner was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident without holding - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6038-DB MFA No. 5051 of 2025 a valid and effective driving licence, and that the said finding has not been rebutted by the owner of the offending vehicle. 6.1 It is further submitted that absence of a valid and effective driving licence constitutes a statutory defence available to the insurer to disown its liability. The burden lies on the owner of the vehicle to establish that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the class of vehicle involved in the accident. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence in that regard, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence and consequently directed pay and recovery. 7. Sri Sreenivasan M.Y., learned counsel appearing for the claimants–respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein, submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to negligence, liability, and quantification of compensation are based on cogent and proved evidence on record. In the absence of any contrary or rebuttal evidence, the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant interference. Learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has already - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6038-DB MFA No. 5051 of 2025 been deposited by the insurer and the same has been withdrawn by the claimants. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, the first contention urged by the appellant is that he was not afforded sufficient opportunity before the Tribunal and, on that ground, seeks remand of the matter for fresh consideration. The said contention is untenable. 8.1 The records of the Tribunal, which are placed before this Court, disclose that notice was issued to the respondents through RPAD. On 15.07.2021, the notice was returned with the endorsement that the addressee, namely the appellant herein, was not available at the given address. The matter was thereafter referred to the Lok Adalat and, upon not being settled, was referred back to the Court. Fresh notice was again issued on 24.09.2021, which was returned with the postal endorsement “addressee left the address” on 28.10.2021. Thereafter, on 12.11.2021, the learned counsel for the claimants filed an application seeking substituted service by way of paper publication, which was allowed. Pursuant thereto, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6038-DB MFA No. 5051 of 2025 notice was published in the newspaper on 20.12.2021. Despite such service, the appellant did not appear and was accordingly placed ex parte on 01.02.2022. 8.2 Respondent No.1 contends that the notice issued by the Tribunal was not duly served. It is not the case of respondent No.1 that there was any change in address, and even such a contention is not available to him. The address of respondent No.1 as stated in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal and the address furnished by respondent No.1 in the present appeal are one and the same. In such circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention that the notices issued by the Tribunal on two occasions were returned unserved without any fault on the part of respondent No.1. 8.3 The conduct of respondent No.1 in not participating in the proceedings before the Tribunal cannot be termed as bona fide. After the accident, an FIR was registered, investigation was conducted, and a charge sheet was filed against the driver and the cleaner of the offending vehicle. These proceedings cannot be said to be beyond the knowledge - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6038-DB MFA No. 5051 of 2025 of respondent No.1. Had respondent No.1 exercised due diligence, there would have been no difficulty in ascertaining the pendency of a claim petition arising out of the said accident, particularly when the accident had resulted in the loss of two lives. Prima facie, the record indicates a conscious decision on the part of respondent No.1 to not participate in the proceedings, possibly under the impression that any compensation awarded would be indemnified by the insurer, as the insurance policy was in force. 8.4 The principles of natural justice can be invoked only when an opportunity of hearing is denied. In the present case, the record discloses not a denial of opportunity, but a failure on the part of respondent No.1 to avail the opportunity and an apparent avoidance of the proceedings. No acceptable explanation is forthcoming as to how, when the address of respondent No.1 has admittedly not changed, the notices issued by the Court through RPAD were returned with the postal endorsement “addressee not in address”. 8.5 For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for respondent - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6038-DB MFA No. 5051 of 2025 No.1 seeking remand of the matter for fresh consideration by the Tribunal. Insofar as the direction issued by the Tribunal ordering pay and recovery is concerned, the same is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu and others (supra). 9. It is a settled position of law, which needs no reiteration that the burden lies on the owner of the vehicle to establish that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Though it is pleaded that one Sri Joginder was driving the offending vehicle with a valid licence at the relevant point of time, the charge sheet placed on record reflects otherwise. In such circumstances, a heavy burden lies upon the owner of the vehicle to rebut the said material and establish the existence of a valid and effective driving licence. 9.1 Having failed to discharge such burden, it is not open to respondent No.1, at this belated stage, either to seek remand of the matter or to contend that the vehicle was driven by Sri Joginder with a valid licence and not by the cleaner. We - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6038-DB MFA No. 5051 of 2025 find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal directing pay and recovery. 9.2 Furthermore, the claimants consist of the aged mother, the widow of the deceased, and two minor children. The award is dated 01.10.2022, whereas the present appeal has been instituted on 04.07.2025, nearly three years thereafter. Any lenient view taken to accede to the prayer of the appellant for remand would cause serious prejudice to, and adversely affect, the rights and interests of the claimants– respondent Nos.2 to 5. 10. Insofar as the contention regarding the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants had pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, in the absence of any documentary or cogent evidence, the Tribunal rightly assessed the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per month. The application of the multiplier of ‘11’ and the addition of 10% towards future prospects are justified, having regard to the age of the deceased, which was 51 years at the time of the accident. Likewise, the compensation awarded under the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6038-DB MFA No. 5051 of 2025 various conventional heads is in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we find no justification or demonstrable grounds to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7