- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1166 MFA No. 102828 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102828 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., 10003/E-8, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302022, DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT BELAGAVI, R/BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH S.GUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. GUNDA S/O. SADASHIV SATAPUTE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VADDI, TQ. MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI-416410. 2. SMT. SUNITA W/O. AJIT CHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DESHING, TQ. KHAVATENAHANKAL-416410. 3. SHRI. RAKESH S/O. GUNDA SATAPUTE, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. VADDI, TQ. MIRAJI, DIST. SANGLI-416410. 4. SHRI. IRAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA SIRAGUR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PARTHANAHALLI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. (OWNER OF TIPPER BEARING NO.GA-05/T-0055) PIN CODE-591304. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1166 MFA No. 102828 of 2022 5. SHRI. SANTOSH S/O. PAVADI BADIGER, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. DARUR, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. (OWNER OF AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING CHASSIS NO.MBX0000ZFSC068591 AND ENGINE NO.ASC0893340) PIN CODE-591304. 6. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DARE HOUSE, SECOND FLOOR, NO.2, N.S.C. BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600001. (INSURER OF AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING CHASSIS NO.MBX0000ZFSC068591 AND ENGINE NO.ASC0893340) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL S.KUNTOJI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRISH YADWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6; NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO A) RECONSIDER THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT AND SHIFT THE LIABILITY IMPOSED ON THE APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANY ON THE OWNER OF THE OFFENDING TIPPER; B) TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC.2437/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AND ADDITIONAL MACT, AT. ATHANI AND ETC.,. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1166 MFA No. 102828 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.2437/2016 dated 25.02.2022 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and Additional MACT, Athani, the appellant/Insurance Company is before this Court. 2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. It is the case of the claimants that on 02.04.2016 at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased along with the claimant No.3 was proceeding on a motorcycle as a pillion rider. When they came near Hulagabali cross, the driver of the auto rickshaw stopped his vehicle on the side of the road. At that time, the driver of the Tipper drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto rickshaw. As a result, the said auto rickshaw dashed to the motorcycle, due to which the deceased and claimant No.3 fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. 3. The Tribunal on the issue of negligence had held that there are two versions. One is that the tipper dashed to the auto rickshaw and auto rickshaw in turn dashed to the motor cycle, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1166 MFA No. 102828 of 2022 whereas, evidence of PW.1 is that the tipper dashed to the motor cycle and then dashed to the auto rickshaw parked on the side of the road. The Tribunal had observed that either way it appears that the claimant did not ride the motorcycle negligently. Apart from that, it appears from Police records as well as the evidence on record that the auto rickshaw was parked on the side of the road and tipper dashed to it. Admittedly, the accident in question took place at 11.00 a.m. In such eventuality, mere parking of the auto rickshaw on the side of the road itself cannot be considered as the cause of accident when the driver of the tipper dashed his vehicle to said auto rickshaw. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the contributory negligence on the driver of the auto rickshaw. In spite of the fact that the charge sheet is filed against the auto rickshaw, the entire liability is fixed on the tipper. Further, it is submitted that the driver of the tipper is not having a valid driving license and in that case, the principle of pay and recover will apply. This aspect was not considered by the Tribunal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1166 MFA No. 102828 of 2022 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4/owner of the tipper submits that the Tribunal had rightly fixed the liability on the Insurance Company and no interference is called for. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants submits that though they have not filed any appeal, still they can seek enhancement of the compensation. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. First coming to the aspect of contributory negligence, as per the evidence on record, the driver of the tipper has dashed to the auto rickshaw and the auto rickshaw in turn has dashed to the motorcycle. Admittedly, the auto rickshaw was parked on the side of the road and the tipper has dashed to the same. Except relying on the charge sheet, no other evidence is placed on record to show that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the auto rickshaw. The Tribunal had rightly discussed about both eventualities, how the driver of the tipper was negligent. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal had rightly considered the aspect of negligence. Then coming to the aspect of pay and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1166 MFA No. 102828 of 2022 recover, when the driver of the tipper was not having a valid driving license, the principle of pay and recover applies and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed holding that the appellant/ Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. i. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the trial Court. ii. The appellant/Insurance Company shall pay the compensation and recover the same from respondent No.4/owner of the vehicle. iii. The Registry is directed to send the certified copy of the order passed by this Court to the Tribunal forthwith without any delay. iv. No costs. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1166 MFA No. 102828 of 2022 v. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MEG CT: UMD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31