Sri. K v. Mohan Kumar Vs Smt. Leelavathi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2788 OF 2021(MV-I) BETWEEN:

SRI. K. V. MOHAN KUMAR S/O. K. B. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. SMB STREET, CHELUR, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1SMT. LEELAVATHI W/O. MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KALASEGOWDANAPALYA, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK.

¶2THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED OPP. RAMA MANDIRA, GEN. KARIYAPPA ROAD, (BAR LINE) K. R. EXTENSION, by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:45976 MFA(No.(2788(of(2021 CNR:(KAHC010130572021 TUMAKURU-572,010., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,PRAKASH,M.H,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,, ,,,,,,SRI.,LINGARAJ,H.S,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2), , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S,173(1),OF,MV,ACT,AGAINST,THE, JUDGMENT,AND,AWARD,DATED,09.02.2018,,PASSED,IN,MVC, NO.835/2015,,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,III,ADDITIONAL,SENIOR, CIVIL, JUDGE, AND, MACT,, TUMAKURU,, AWARDING, COMPENSATION, OF, RS.2,42,300/-, 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,RAJESH,RAI,K ORAL(JUDGMENT , , The,appellant,,being,the,insured-owner,of,the,SLVT, bus, bearing, registration, No.KA-06-A-3069,, has, preferred, this, appeal,challenging,the,judgment,and,award,dated,09.02.2018, passed,in,MVC,No.835/2015,by,the,III,Additional,Senior,Civil, Judge,and,MACT,,Tumkuru,(for,short,,'the,Tribunal'),,whereby, the, Tribunal, partly, allowed, the, claim, petition, filed, by, the, claimant, and, awarded, compensation, of, Rs.2,42,300/-, with,

interest at 6% per annum and further fastened the liability on the appellant-insured to satisfy the award on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident.

¶2The occurrence of the accident dated 09.06.2014 and the involvement of the bus bearing registration No.KA-06-A-3069 therein are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, as on the date of the accident, the said bus was covered under a valid insurance policy issued by respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.

¶3The sole contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-insured is that, since the insurance policy was in force at the time of accident, the Tribunal ought to have directed the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company to satisfy the award with liberty to recover the same from the insured-owner. However, this position of law is no longer res integra, having been settled by a catena of judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the driver of the offending bus was not

possessing a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Despite issuance of notice, the appellant-insured has failed to produce the driving licence. It is also not in dispute that the insured contested the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶4In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability upon the insured to satisfy the award. It is well settled by a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court that the direction to the insurance company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insured is issued only with a view to protect the interest of third parties. In the instant case, as the insured himself has challenged the liability and has failed to establish possession of a valid driving licence by the driver of the offending bus, no such direction for pay and recovery is warranted.

¶5In the case on hand, the insured himself appeared before the Tribunal and contested the claim petition. The instant appeal is also preferred by the insured challenging the liability fastened upon him. In such circumstances, the question

of directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insured does not arise. The primary liability to satisfy the award rests upon the insured, as rightly held by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant-insured before the Tribunal, in accordance with law.

SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28