MFA/3912/2016 of JAGADISH H G Vs MANJUNATHA KUMAR K B on 1 June 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M. NADAF)

This appeal by the claimant calling in question the judgment and award dated 03.03.2016 in MVC.No.1032/2012 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-X, Tumakuru 1“Tribunal”.

2. The Tribunal by means of award granted a compensation of Rs.25,000/- globally with interest at 6%

1 ‘Tribunal’

HC-KAR

per annum, however, fastened the entire liability on respondent No.1 under the premise that he has failed to discharge his burden and failed to produce driving license.

3. The date of accident, involvement of the vehicle and the injury suffered are not in dispute. The only dispute is in respect to quantum of compensation as well as liability to pay the compensation.

4. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

5. Heard Sri.Shantharaj.K, learned counsel appearing for appellant-claimant and Madam Mamatha S.Shankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel respondent No.2- Insurer. Respondent No.1 though appeared through his counsel, but none present in this Court today.

6. Sri.Shantharaj.K, argued on two points, firstly, the Tribunal has committed serious error in granting a global compensation of Rs.25,000/- in respect to a

HC-KAR

fracture of clavicle, which has made the claimant to be an in-patient for 4 days in the hospital and to take treatment, as such the same requires reconsideration before this Court. Secondly, he submits that the Tribunal only on the ground that the respondent No.1-Insured has failed to discharge his burden as well as he failed to produce driving license either of Sri.Shabharish or Sri.Manjunath, fastened the entire liability on respondent No.1-Insured. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in legion of cases has held that when the claimant is a third party, in the absence of driving license or fake driving license or driving license which is not valid as on the date of accident, the insurer is primarily made liable to pay the compensation, with liberty to recover the same from the owner and sought to allow the appeal.

7. In contrast, Madam Mamatha S.Shankar, with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal after going through entire record found that as per the FIR name of Manjunath was shown as the rider of the motor cycle,

HC-KAR

whereas the respondent No.1-insured in his cross- examination has admitted that he has given the motor cycle in the hands of Shabharish and not Manjunath. As such, this evidence of the respondent No.1 was disbelieved by the Tribunal and held that respondent No.1-Insured has failed either to discharge his burden shouldered on him as well as failed to produce driving license either of Shabharish or Manjunath. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal fastening the entire liability on respondent No.1-Insured does not call for any interference.

8. So far as compensation of Rs.25,000/- is concerned, for a fracture of clavicle, the Tribunal after considering the entire material taking into consideration of the fact that the claimant was 4 days in-patient in hospital, awarded global compensation, as such the entire award passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference.

HC-KAR

9. Madam Mamatha further submits that the owner against whom the liability has been fastened is not in appeal, as such he has accepted the liability. In these circumstances the appeal on both the counts, by the claimant required to be dismissed.

10. Having heard the rival submissions, I have gone through the entire appeal memorandum as well as the trial Court records.

11. The Tribunal reasoned its order for fastening the liability on respondent No.1, only on the premise that the respondent No.1 has failed to discharge his burden and has failed to produce driving license either of Sri.Shabhareesh-claimant or Sri.Manjunath before the Tribunal, but the fact remains that the claimant was a third party. In view of the settled position of law by the Supreme Court in catena of cases, in case of breach of policy conditions on driving license, the Insurer is primarily made liable to pay the compensation with liberty to

HC-KAR

recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, where a third party claim is involved.

12. So far as compensation of Rs.25,000/- is concerned, this Court has observed that the claimant has suffered fracture of left clavicle minically displaced, as per wound certificate at Ex.P4 and the Doctor has submitted his opinion that the injury is grievous in nature. He was 4 days as an in-patient. Instead of calculating on each head, for granting compensation, if a global compensation of Rs.50,000/- is awarded including the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the same would meet ends of justice. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal allowed in part.

(ii) The judgment and award dated 03.03.2016 in MVC.No.1032/2012 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Vehicle

HC-KAR

Accident Claims Tribunal-X, Tumakuru is modified and the compensation is re- determined at Rs.50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

(iii) Respondent No.2-Insurer shall deposit the entire re-determined compensation along with interest stated supra within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, before the concerned Tribunal with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle/Insured.

(iv) Upon deposit the entire amount shall be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification

(v) The Registry shall return the trial Court record forthwith to the concerned Tribunal.

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 ct-vn