THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AND SET ASIDE THE LIABILITY FIXED ON THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE AND RESPONDENT NO.2 BE HELD LIABLE TO PAY THE COMPENSATION, BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.301/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HANGAL, AT: HANGAL, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 20.09.2024 passed in MVC No.301 of 2019 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and amact, Hangal.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

3. On 06.02.2018 at about 9:00am, the petitioner was returning back to his village after vending milk to milk dairy by walk on the left side of the road, at that time, the driver of autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA.27/B-5819 drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner. As a result, he sustained a grievous injury all over the body and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking a compensation on the account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, pryas to allow the claim petition.

4. Respondent No.1-owner of the auto appeared through the counsel, however, did not file his statement of objections.

5. The respondent No.2-Insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contented that the driver of the autorikshaw was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident and also contented that the petitioner was crossing the road without observing the vehicles plying on the road. The petitioner himself is the wrongdoer and contributed for the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company.

6. The Tribunal based on the rival pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues.

7. The petitioner to prove his case examined himself as PW1, examined the Doctor as PW.2 and marked 59 documents as Exhibits P.1 to P.59. In rebuttal, the officer of the insurance company was examined as RW.1 and marked 5 documents as Exhibits R.1 to R.5.

8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs and awarded compensation of ₹2,32,410/- with interest rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the amount and dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company and directed the owner of the auto to deposit the compensation amount.

9. The petitioner aggrieved by the impugned judgment filed this appeal.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the insurance company.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned judgment filed this appeal on the limited ground that the policy was in force as of the date of accident and if there is any violation of policy condition, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insurer and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle and in order to buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Yellawwa reported in 2020 (2) KCCR 1405. Hence on this ground, he prays to allow the appeal.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company submit that the autorickshaw driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident and there is a violation of policy condition. The insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner. He a