- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9286 MFA No. 6452 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6452 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: B. V. MAHAVEERA, S/O. VINJARAJA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, MAHAVEERA TRADERS, APMC YARD, ARASIKERE NAGARA, ARASIKERE - 573 130. …APPELLANT (BY MRS. ARATHI B., ADVOCATE FOR MS. VIDYA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUBRAMANYA, S/O. ARMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, UPPALLI, CHIKKAMANGALURU - 577 101. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: C/O CHANDREGOWDA IN MANVINAHALLI, SAKALESHWARA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT– 573 201. 2. THE NATIONAL INS CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9286 MFA No. 6452 of 2018 SRI. MANJUNATHESWARA COMPLEX, OLD BUS STAND ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.646/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SAKALESHPUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the owner of the vehicle calling in question the Judgment and award dated 28.02.2018 in MVC No.646/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakaleshpur, saddling liability to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization, on the premise that the driving license of the driver has not been produced. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9286 MFA No. 6452 of 2018 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. In an accident occurred on 26.12.2012, respondent No.1 sustained injuries. The Tribunal after going through the entire record was of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- as global compensation along with 9% interest per annum. However, the Tribunal on the premise that the owner of the vehicle has not produced the driving license of the driver though the offences charged against the driver were under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, fastened the entire liability on the owner and dismissed the petition against respondent No.2-Insurer. Challenging the liability, the owner is in appeal. 4. Along with the appeal, the appellant-owner of the vehicle filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Though the application is filed in the year 2018 and copy has been served on the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9286 MFA No. 6452 of 2018 learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurer, till date no statement of objection has been filed to the application. The appellant along with the application filed Extract of driving license pertaining to Ananda.B.G, wherein it is shown that he is possessing valid and effective driving license for LMV from 18.05.2006 till 17.05.2026. The charge sheet at Ex.P8 clearly shows the name of the driver as Ananda.B.G and the charges pressed against the driver were under the provisions of Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. None of the penal provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act were pressed against the driver. In the absence of penal provisions, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle only on the defence taken by the insurer in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the said defence. 5. Heard Ms.Arathi.B, learned counsel for Smt.Vidya S, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Respondent No.2 though served and appeared through - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9286 MFA No. 6452 of 2018 counsel, neither the learned counsel nor the party is present. Respondent No.1, though served is unrepresented. 6. Ms.Arathi, with all vehemence submits that in the absence of any provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, involved against the driver by the police, the Tribunal has committed serious error in fastening the entire liability on the owner of the vehicle only on the defence taken by the insurer, in the absence of any evidence to substantiate said defence. She has taken this Court through paragraph No.19 of the judgment, wherein the Tribunal has clearly stated that ‘It is necessary to note that in the charge sheet no doubt the investigation Officer has not included Section 3 or Section 181 of IMV Act in addition to other offences against the rider of the offending car. However, the respondent No.1 though stated that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and that the driver was having valid DL to drive the said vehicle has not furnished any documents to prove the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9286 MFA No. 6452 of 2018 same’. On this, Ms.Arathi.B, submits that fastening of liability by the Tribunal is against the settled principles of law. 7. She further submits that an application is now filed along with copy of the Extract of the driving license issued by the concerned authority as additional evidence. No objection has been filed till date. She further submits that since the appellant was suffering from ill health, he could not produce the copy of the license of the driver before the Tribunal. The driver was possessing a valid and effective license as on the date of accident. In these circumstances, the liability fastened on the owner of the vehicle must be set aside and the insurer be made liable to pay the compensation. Considering the submissions, the questions that arise for consideration are as follows: (i) Whether the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC requires consideration? (ii) Whether the appellant has made out a case to interfere in the judgment and award passed by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9286 MFA No. 6452 of 2018 the Tribunal with respect to fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle? 8. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1 – In the affirmative. Point No.2 - Partly in affirmative for the following: REASONS 9. Though the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 is served on the insurer along with the copy of the appeal memorandum long back in 2018, however, till date no objection has been filed. As per the provisions contained under Order XLI Rule 27, an application filed for production of additional evidence can be considered under sub-rule 1(b), where the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined is to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. In the judgment, the only reason stated by the Tribunal to fasten the liability is non-production of license. The license now produced along with application - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9286 MFA No. 6452 of 2018 clearly shows that the driver was possessing a valid and effective license. However, the same shall withstand the test of examination before the Tribunal. 10. For the proper adjudication of the lis, this Court is of the opinion that the application requires consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2018 is allowed and the documents produced are taken on record. However the fact remains, that, in the event the liability is to be fastened, the insurer shall be given an opportunity to test the veracity of the said document. In view of the same, the matter requires a remand before the Tribunal only with respect to the liability fastened on the insurer. Though the claimant was served, remained unrepresented. In these circumstances the compensation awarded is just and proper and the same does not require any interference. Accordingly this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The Judgment and award dated 28.02.2018 in MVC.No.646/2013 passed by the Senior - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9286 MFA No. 6452 of 2018 Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakaleshpur is hereby modified, by setting aside the order of fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle. ii) The matter stands remanded to the Tribunal to decide only on the liability to pay the compensation. iii) Both the parties are directed to be present before the Tribunal on 26.03.2026, without waiting for any notice from the Tribunal and the respondent No. 1 owner of the vehicle shall produce either the original or the certified copy of the Extract of the driving license before the Tribunal. iv) The application now allowed and taken on record shall be forwarded to the Tribunal for its consideration and further action. Considering the date of accident the Tribunal is requested to make all endeavors to dispose - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9286 MFA No. 6452 of 2018 of the matter as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of 6 months from the date of first appearance i.e., on 26.03.2026 and decide the matter after affording opportunity to both the parties who lead evidence on the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle. v) The amount in deposit if any, shall be released in favor of the appellant on proper identification. vi) The trial Court records shall be sent forthwith to the Tribunal. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 ct-vn