Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insruance Co Ltd vs Rizwana Khanum on 5 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9304
MFA No. 8197 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8197 OF 2015 (WC)
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
401/2F-1, SWASTIK MANANDI ARCADE,
S.C.ROAD, OPP SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION
BANGALORE - 560 020.
THROUGH ITS BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE
NO. 44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE 25
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. RIZWANA KHANUM
SUVARNA T W/O LATE MAHABOOB @ MAHABOOB PASHA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
Location:
HIGH 2. MOHAMMED NAWAZ KHAN
COURT OF S/O LATE MAHABOOB @ MAHABOOB PASHA
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
3. RUKSANA KHANA
D/O LATE MAHABOOB @ MAHABOOB PASHA
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
4. ABU SUFIYAN KHAN
S/O LATE MAHABOOB @ MAHABOOB PASHA
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9304
MFA No. 8197 of 2015
5. KHURSHEED BEGUM
W/O LATE BABU KHAN
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O MUSTHAFA KHAN,
LIG-49, KHB COLONY, JAIPURA ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN - 572 101
THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS
AND ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
THE RESPONDENT NO.1
6. MUNIRAJ J
S/O B.A.JAYARAM,
MAJOR IN AGE
EXCELLENT TRANSPORT,
R/O NO. 1/2, SRINIVASA NILAYA
GOVER ROAD, COX TOWN
BANGALORE - 560 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(V/O/D 06/01/2023 NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O/D:23/11/2024, MR.LIKITH, ADVOCATE APPOINTED AS
AMICUS CUEIAE TO ASSIST THE COURT ON BEHALF OD R1-R5
R6- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED:22.07.2015 PASSED IN ECA NO.2/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
TUMAKURU, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,98,800/-
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9304
MFA No. 8197 of 2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed in E.C.A.No.2/2015 dated
22.07.2015 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumakuru, the appellant/Insurance
Company is before this Court.
2. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein have filed a petition
under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act for
award of compensation along with interest of 12% p.a. from
the date of petition till realization, in respect of death of the
deceased in the accident. The claimants are the wife, children
and mother of the deceased. It is their case that the deceased
was working as driver under the 1st respondent therein in his
bus since 5 years on monthly salary of an amount of Rs.4500/-
and Rs.50/- per day as Batta. On 07.05.2006, the deceased
was proceeding in the said vehicle along with paid passengers
from Bangalore to Bijapur as per the instructions of the owner
of the vehicle. When he reached near Budni Cross at 6:30 a.m.,
the deceased trying to overtake one vehicle by following rules,
at that time one Canter vehicle driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner with high speed came from opposite side
and dashed both the vehicles and caused the accident. Due to
NC: 2025:KHC:9304
impact, deceased sustained fatal injuries and also fracture and
grievous injuries all over the body and died at the spot and in
that regard a case was registered. The claimants who are the
family members have come up with the petition seeking
compensation.
3. The Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount
of Rs.3,98,900/- and the same was questioned by the
Insurance Company by filing MFA.No.7839/2009. It is the case
of the Insurance Company that the owner of the vehicle has
gone before the Consumer Forum and it was argued that the
driving license was a fake driving license and the District Forum
has upheld the same and that was confirmed by the State
Forum. It was questioned by the owner of the vehicle by filing
WP.No.13795/2008 before this Court and this Court has
confirmed the said orders. In view of the same, it is argued
that the driver was holding a fake driving license and as such
the Insurance Company has no liability to pay the
compensation. Then this Court has remanded the matter back
to the trial Court and after remand Additional Issue No.1 was
framed and both the parties were permitted to lead evidence on
the issue and Ex.P14 - duplicate driving license of deceased and
NC: 2025:KHC:9304
Ex.P15 - identity card issued by the Maxicab Owners and
Drivers Association (Regd.,) Tumakuru was produced and the
Insurance Company got examined as RW.2 and produced Ex.R3
- Certified Copy of the order in WP.No.13795/2008 and also
filed Ex.R2 - Certified Copy of D.L extract. The same authority
has issued endorsement Ex.R2 and also Ex.P13 which are
contrary to each other.
4. Then the Tribunal has held that it is the burden of the
Insurance Company to examine the author of the documents,
but Insurance Company has not taken proper steps to secure
the witness i.e., Asst. Licensing Authority, Red Hills, Chennai.
Ex.P13 reads that the deceased had driving license which was
valid from 12.06.2003 to 11.06.2006. The Court gave a finding
that the deceased was having a valid driving license as on the
date of the accident and the same is fortified by Ex.P14 and no
material has been elicited in the evidence to disbelieve these
two documents and further the Insurance Company has not
placed cogent evidence to establish their contention that the
deceased was holding fake license on the date of the accident.
Considering all this, the Court had held that the Insurance
NC: 2025:KHC:9304
Company is liable to pay the compensation and accordingly
granted compensation of an amount of Rs.3,98,800/-.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company submits that when Ex.R2 discloses that driving
license is a fake driving license, the Court ought to have
exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. It is
submitted that in fact they have taken steps to examine the
concerned. In spite of the same, they have not appeared before
the Court to give the evidence. Learned counsel further submits
that it is the burden on the owner of the vehicle to prove the
same and he has failed to prove that there is a valid driving
license and the Tribunal had wrongly fastened the burden on
the Insurance Company. It is submitted that in the light of
Ex.R2, the appeal of the Insurance Company has to be allowed.
6. Though notice is served on the respondents, no
vakalath is filed and amicus curiae is appointed on behalf of the
respondents and the amicus curies has not appeared before the
Court.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant,
perused the entire material on record. It is the contention of
NC: 2025:KHC:9304
the appellant/Insurance Company that in the light of the orders
passed by the District Forum and the State Forum which is
confirmed by this Court in WP.No.13795/2008 that the driving
license of the deceased is a fake driving license. In the earlier
round of litigation, when the M.V.C. was allowed and the
Insurance Company has filed an appeal before this Court i.e.,
MFA.No.7839/2009, this Court considering all these contentions
has remanded the matter to the Trial Court directing the Trial
Court to frame an additional issue in that regard and an
additional issue was framed and both the Insurance Company
as well as the claimant had adduced the evidence. Ex.R2 and
Ex.R3 are issued by Asst. Licensing Authority, Red Hills,
Chennai, who has given two endorsements which are contrary
to each other. When it is the specific case of the Insurance
Company that the deceased was having a fake driving license,
the burden lies on the Insurance Company to prove the same.
It is the observation of the Court that the Insurance Company
had not taken such a stand or any steps to examine the
concerned. Considering Ex.P13 and other evidence, the Court
has come to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is
liable to pay the compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC:9304
8. This Court having perused the judgment and the
documents finds that the Tribunal has rightly observed and
rightly held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation and the Insurance Company has failed to
discharge their burden and prove that the deceased was having
a fake driving license.
9. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company is
dismissed.
i. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to
the trial Court forthwith.
ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy
of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
iii. No costs.
iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG
