IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100522 OF 2014 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI. PANDURANG S/O. KUBERAPPA GOUDAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER-CUM-OWNER OF TUMTUM VEHICLE BEARING NO. KA-29/854, R/O. GOUDAR STREET, KAMATIGI TQ., HUNGUND, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, PRESENTLY R/O. PENDAVIGALLI, GULEDAGUDDA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.S. HARAVI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. SHAVAKKA W/O. KUMAR GUNDI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: NURSE, R/O. PLOT NO. B-17, SECTOR NO.44, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BHARATHI UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., H M MELLIGERI COMPLEX, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.

…RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGHCOURT (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-DISMISSED)

OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2013 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.51/2011 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER M.A.C.T. NO.IV, BAGALKOT, AT BAGALKOT IN SO FAR AS SADDLING THE LIABILITY ON THE OWNER OF VEHICLE AND ABSOLVE THE LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO PAY THE COMPENSATION; CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE TRAIL COURT IN M.V.C.NO.51/2011 FOR KIND PERUSAL OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND ETC.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the owner of offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award dated 28.02.2013 passed in MVC No.51/2011 on the file of MACT-IV, Bagalkot (for short, ‘Tribunal’)saddling liability only on the owner of the vehicle.

2. Parties are referred with their ranks as they were before the Tribunal for sake of convenience and clarity. 3. The claimant has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him in the accident that had taken place on 17.11.2010 at 12.00 noon in Guledagudda on PWD road at Guledagudda by involving Tum-Tum vehicle bearing No.KA-29/854.

4. Respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed objection statement, wherein he denied the claim petition averments in toto and further contended that the vehicle in question was validly insured with respondent No.2 and hence he is not liable to pay the compensation.

5. Respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel before the Tribunal and filed its objection statement, wherein it has taken several contentions and also took contention that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. Further, the owner has violated the permit conditions and terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus it is not liable to pay compensation.

6. After recording evidence and hearing arguments, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for compensation of ₹.69,276/- towards the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident and saddled the liability only on owner on the ground that the vehicle in question was taken beyond 10 kilometers of RTO permit area and thus violated the terms and conditions, which resulted in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of saddling liability on the owner, owner/respondent No.1 has preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard arguments of both sides.

9. Learned counsel for appellant, Sri M.S.Haravi would submit that violation of terms and conditions of the policy would not absolve the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation. But the insurer has to pay the compensation to the claimant and then it may recover the same from owner. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh vs Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Reported in AIR 2018 SC 2662 and hence prayed