IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

M.F.A. NO. 25239 OF 2010(MV)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,

DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MISSION ROAD,

SUBBAYYA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-27,

REPTD., BY ASSISTANT MANAGER,

SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD,

HUBLI-580 020.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. A G JADHAV, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . ASHOK KAMALAKSHA BHAT,

AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: NIL,R/O: VASUDEV

KRUPA,DONGARKERI, MANGALORE,

DIST: DAKSHINA KANNADA.

2 . M/S. OLETY TRAVELS PVT., LTD.,

NO.36, SUJJAN RAO ROAD,V.V.PURAM,

BANGALORE-4.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SURESH BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

R2 SERVED)

- 2 -

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF M.V.ACT, 1988,

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09-09-2010,

PASSED IN MVC NO.106/2003, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER,

ADDL. MACT, HONAVAR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF

RS.94,100/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM

THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS

DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The

appeal

is

filed

by

the

Insurance

Company

challenging the validity of the judgment and award passed in

M.V.C.No.106/2003 dated 09-09-2010 on the file of Addl.

M.A.C.T., Honnavar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’,

for short).

2.

The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of

the appeal are as under:

A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of

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

Act' for short) contending that on 15.02.2003 at about 12.15

p.m. the claimant was proceeding on a Luna. At that juncture,

a Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-01/A-3521 came in a rash

and negligent manner from Honnavar side and dashed the

- 3 -

hind side of two wheeler of the claimant whereby he fell down

and sustained grievous injures. He was shifted to the

Government Hospital, Honnavar and thereafter to KMC

Hospital, Manipal. He has to spend huge sum of money and

thus, sought for awarding suitable compensation.

3.

The claim petition was resisted by the respondents

by filing written statement denying the petition averments in

toto.

4.

The Tribunal raised necessary issues and after

considering the oral and documentary evidence on record,

allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs.94,100/-as

compensation.

5.

Being aggrieved by the same, Insurance Company

has preferred this appeal.

6.

Sri A.G. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/Insurance Company vehemently contended that the

driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving

licence and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to

- 4 -

pay compensation. He further contended that the Insurance

Company made an effort to summon the driving licence from

the driver of the offending vehicle by filing I.A.Nos.6 and 7.

Though those applications were allowed neither did the owner

nor the driver produce their driving license. Therefore,

adverse inference will have to be drawn against the driver and

owner of the offending vehicle and thus sought for allowing

the appeal.

7.

Before this Court the respondents-owner and

claimant though served, remained absent. The claimant has

engaged the services of one Sri Suresh Bhat, who is also

absent before this Court. Therefore, this Court perused the

records in the light of the arguments put forth by the learned

counsel for appellant/Insurance Company.

8.

In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the

point that would arise for consideration is:

"Whether the Insurance Company has made

out a case for allowing the appeal?"

- 5 -

9.

In the case on hand, the accidental injuries

sustained by the claimant in the accident that occurred on 15-

02-2003 at about 12-15 p.m. involving a Tempo Traveler

bearing No.KA-01/A-3521 stands established by placing oral