IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6452 OF 2018 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

B. V. MAHAVEERA, S/O. VINJARAJA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, MAHAVEERA TRADERS, APMC YARD, ARASIKERE NAGARA, ARASIKERE - 573 130.

…APPELLANT (BY MRS. ARATHI B., ADVOCATE FOR MS. VIDYA S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SUBRAMANYA, Digitally S/O. ARMUGAM, Signed by AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, REKHA R Location : UPPALLI, High Court CHIKKAMANGALURU - 577 101.

of Karnataka PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:

C/O CHANDREGOWDA IN MANVINAHALLI, SAKALESHWARA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT– 573 201.

2. THE NATIONAL INS CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SRI. MANJUNATHESWARA COMPLEX, OLD BUS STAND ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.646/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SAKALESHPUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A.

FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the owner of the vehicle calling in question the Judgment and award dated 28.02.2018 in MVC No.646/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakaleshpur, saddling liability to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization, on the premise that the driving license of the driver has not been produced.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. In an accident occurred on 26.12.2012, respondent No.1 sustained injuries. The Tribunal after going through the entire record was of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- as global compensation along with 9% interest per annum. However, the Tribunal on the premise that the owner of the vehicle has not produced the driving license of the driver though the offences charged against the driver were under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, fastened the entire liability on the owner and dismissed the petition against respondent No.2-Insurer. Challenging the liability, the owner is in appeal.

4. Along with the appeal, the appellant-owner of the vehicle filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Though the application is filed in the year 2018 and copy has been served on the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurer, till date no statement of objection has been filed to the application. The appellant along with the application filed Extract of driving license pertaining to Ananda.B.G, wherein it is shown that he is possessing valid and effective driving license for LMV from 18.05.2006 till 17.05.2026. The charge sheet at Ex.P8 clearly shows the name of the driver as Ananda.B.G and the charges pressed against the driver were under the provisions of Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. None of the penal provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act were pressed against the driver. In the absence of penal provisions, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle only on the defence taken by the insurer in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the said defence.

5. Heard Ms.Arathi.B, learned counsel for Smt.Vidya S, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Respondent No.2 though served and appeared through counsel, neither the learned counsel nor the party is present. Respondent No.1, though served is unrepresented.

6. Ms.Arathi, with all vehemence submits that in the absence of any provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, involved against the driver by the police, the Tribunal has committed serious error in fastening the entire liability on the owner of the vehicle only on the defence taken by the insurer, i