MFA.No.3450/2017 is filed under Section-173(1) of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as

8MV Act9 for brevity) by the appellant-claimant challenging

the judgment and award dated 11.01.2017 passed in MVC

No.5435/2015, on the file of the XXII Additional Small

Causes Judge and XX Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate & MACT, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as

8the Tribunal9 for brevity) seeking enhancement of

compensation. MFA.No.2716/2017 is filed by the Insurance

Company challenging the judgment and award dated

11.01.2017 passed in MVC No.5435/2015, questioning its

liability to pay compensation.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that on 01.06.2015

at about 12.00 noon, the appellant was proceeding on

Halasuru

Cambridge

Road

in

TVS

Moped

bearing

Reg.No.KA-02-EF-9673, when he reached near Commando

Hospital Guard Room Gate, Bengaluru, at that time, all of

a sudden, Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MP-5050, came in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

5

appellant's moped. Due to the same, the vehicle driven by

the appellant got damaged and he sustained severe

injuries on his left leg and other parts of the body. Hence,

a claim petition was filed by the appellant-claimant under

Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the

injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal on

appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition

in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,37,400/-,

along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal held

respondent Nos.1 and 3 therein, jointly and severally liable

to pay the compensation. Further, it is stated by the

insurer that the Tribunal committed grave error by

fastening liability on it as the driver of the Car was not

holding driving licence at the time of accident, which is

violation of basic condition of the policy and also stated

that the appellant-claimant produced the statement of the

owner of the Car and copy of the plea guilt by the driver

before the Tribunal to show that the driver of the insured

Car was not holding driving licence at the time of accident.

6

Hence, liability fastened against the insurer requires to be

set aside.

3.

In MFA.No.3450/2017, heard arguments of the

learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel

for respondent No.3 3 insurance company and in

MFA.No.2716/2017,

heard

learned

counsel

for

the

appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

perused the materials on record.

Regarding:- Liability to satisfy the claim.

4.

The learned counsel for the insurance company

submitted that at the time of the accident, the driver of

the Car was not holding driving licence to drive the Car

and in this regard, the police have filed the charge sheet

against the driver of the Car that he was not possessing

the driving licence. Therefore, the FIR is registered against

the owner of the Car, who is respondent No.1 that he has

authorized to drive the Car to a person who was not

holding the driving licence. Accordingly, offences under

Sections 3(1) and 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(for short 8M.V.Act9) are charged against the owner of the

7

Car and he had admitted the guilt before the Court of the

Magistrate. Therefore, it is for the owner of the Car to

prove that the driver was holding driving licence to drive

the Car. Therefore, it is submitted that inspite of the

evidences produced before the Tribunal to prove that the

driver of the Car was not holding driving licence, the

Tribunal has not appreciated the same and wrongly

fastened

the

liability

on

the

insurance

company.

Therefore, he prays for setting aside the finding of the

Tribunal that the insurance company is liable to pay

compensation along with owner. But for breach of

conditions of insurance policy as above discussed that the

driver of the Car was not holding the driving licence, owner

of the Car is alone liable to pay compensation and the

insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

Therefore, h