IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200203 OF 2018 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, III FLOOR, ASIAN PLAZA, TIMMAPURI CIRCLE, MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI.

(NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, HUBLI).

…APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHAIKH AHMED ALI S/O ABDUL RASHEED MIYAN, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: MASON, R/O BULAND PARVAZ COLONY, MILLAT NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585 101.

2. RAJU S/O HANMANTHARAYA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF AUTORICKSHAW BEARING NO.KA-32/B-1207, R/O VILLAGE MAHAGOAN, TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585 101.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADV. FOR R1;

R2-SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.09.2017 IN MVC NO.476/2014 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

28.09.2017 passed in MVC No.476/2019 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, respondent No.2-Insurance Company is before this Court in appeal.

2. The petitioner approached the Tribunal contending that on 04.02.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., while he was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-32/ Y-5451, the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-32/B-1207 came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle, due to which, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Gulbarga, where he took treatment for about three days. It was contended that he has suffered abrasions and other injuries in the accident.

3. The petition was resisted by respondent No.2-

Insurance Company, contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and it has denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. Interalia, it has contended that the driver of the auto rickshaw was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident and that, there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner, since the accident occurred at the middle of the road.

4. On the basis of the rival contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. An official of respondent No.2 was examined RW1 and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked.

5. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner by fastening the liability on respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company is before this Court, assailing the liability fastened upon it.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-petitioner.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. The second prong of the argument is that, the driving licence was not for transport vehicles and therefore, the Tribunal could not have fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/petitioner would submit that the appellant-Insurance Company has not rebutted the negligence attributed to the driver of the auto rickshaw. The charge sheet and thereafter pleading guilty by the driver of the auto rickshaw would go against the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is pointed out that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited¹, the Insur