[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Smt. Yashodamma on 6 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18582
M.F.A. No.2061/2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2061/2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SHIMOGA BRANCH, FIRST FLOOR
S.S.COMPLEX ABOVE HARSH
BANGALORE HONAVAR ROAD
P.B. NO.151, SHIMOGA
REP BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
SHUBHARAM COMPLEX 144
Digitally signed M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM
...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADV.,)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SMT. YASHODAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O NAGARAJ
R/O. 2ND CROSS
MARIYAMMA STREET
DEVARAHALLI, VIJAYANAGARA
BHADRAVATHI NOW RESIDING AT
MALLADIHALLI VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577301
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
2. SRI. ARMUGAM M.S.
S/O LATE MURUGESH
JAYANAGARA DEVARAHALLI POST
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18582
M.F.A. No.2061/2018
HC-KAR
BHADRAVATHI-577301
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
V/O/DTD:17.11.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS H/S)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.383/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, HOLALKERE, PERUSE
THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AWARD DATED
27.12.2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
HOLALKERE AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEFS AS THE HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO
GRANT, IN THE ENDS OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Manager, National
Insurance Company Limited challenging the judgment and
award dated 27.12.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.383/2013 by
the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Holalkere (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submits that this appeal is filed by the
Insurance Company only to the extent of saddling the
NC: 2026:KHC:18582
HC-KAR
liability on the Insurance Company instead of the owner of
the vehicle involved in the accident. It is submitted that
the accident is caused due to the rash and negligent riding
of the rider of the motorcycle owned by the respondent
No.1 and admittedly, on the date of accident, the rider of
the motorcycle was not having a valid and effective driving
licence. Hence, the entire liability to pay the
compensation should have been saddled on the
respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle by directing the
Insurance Company to pay the said compensation amount
and recover the same from the owner. In support of his
contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHAMANNA AND
ANOTHER Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.1 Hence, he seeks to
allow the appeal.
2018 SCC Online SC 849
NC: 2026:KHC:18582
HC-KAR
3. Though notice issued on the respondent No.1-
claimant as well as the respondent No.2-owner of the
vehicle is served, they remain absent.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant and meticulously perused the
material available on record.
5. The material on record indicates that on
28.07.2012, the claimant in MVC No.383/2013 met with a
road accident and sustained grievous injuries. The
material on record further indicates that the accident is
caused due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-14/EC-7487 by its rider and the
said vehicle is owned by the respondent No.2 herein. The
appellant, in the statement of objections has clearly stated
that the rider of the motorcycle was not having a valid and
effective driving licence to ride the motorcycle. However,
in order to substantiate the said contention, the Insurance
Company has examined its Officer Sri.Y.Mohan as RW-1
NC: 2026:KHC:18582
HC-KAR
and got marked Exs.R1 to R5. The claimant, in order to
prove the claim examined herself as PW-1, examined
Dr.K.B.C.Sogi as PW-2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13.
The Tribunal, at paragraph 37 made a reference with
regard to the contentions raised, however, recorded the
finding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation. It is to be noticed that the appellant has
specifically raised a contention before the Tribunal that the
rider of the motorcycle was not having a valid and
effective driving licence to ride the motorcycle and they
have issued the legal notice to the owner as well as the
rider of the motorcycle, to produce the driving licence
before the Tribunal. The copies of the said notice,
acknowledgment, receipts etc. were placed before the
Tribunal and marked as evidence. Admittedly, the
jurisdictional police, after the investigation, filed a charge
sheet against the rider of the motorcycle under Section
3(1) read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
NC: 2026:KHC:18582
HC-KAR
1988, for not having a valid and effective driving licence at
the time of accident.
6. Considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, I am of the considered view that the
Tribunal has grossly erred in saddling the liability on the
Insurance Company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of SHAMANNA AND ANOTHER referred supra, as
well as in the case of PAPPU AND OTHERS Vs. VINOD
KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER2 has held that in the
case of an invalid driving licence, the Insurance Company
shall make good the compensation amount and recover
the same from the owner of the vehicle. Keeping in mind
the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, I am of the considered view that the appeal
deserves to be allowed.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(2018) 3 SCC 208
NC: 2026:KHC:18582
HC-KAR
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award dated
27.12.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.383/2013 by
the Tribunal insofar as the liability is concerned,
is set aside by holding that the respondent No.2
is liable to pay the compensation. To the
aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal is modified.
c) The appellant is directed to pay the
compensation and recover the same from the
respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle.
d) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted
back to the Tribunal forthwith.
e) Registry shall transmit the records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
Draw the modified decree accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
