United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri Karinayaka

THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, 5^TH & 6^TH FLOORS, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, SRI T N ADISESH.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. KRISHNA KISHORE S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka

¶14

SRI KARINAYAKA @ KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O SRI ANDANI NAYAKA, RESIDING AT BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶15

SRI MAHADEVA R AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O SRI RAMEGOWDA, RESIDING AT DODDEKOPPALU VILLAGE, DORNAHALLI ROAD, K R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶16

MR AMZAD PASHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36818 MFA No. 8176 of 2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

S/O MR MOHAMMED MADOR, RESIDENT OF MANYA ROAD, NAGAMANGALA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAJANNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 AND R3 SERVED)

¶22

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 15.06.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.220/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AND MACT, HUNSUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.77,385/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6 PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This matter was posted for the hearing on 11.09.2025 and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Learned counsel for respondents was not present on that day. Hence, the matter was posted to this day for hearing the arguments of learned counsel for respondents. Today also the learned counsel for respondent did not turn up and hence, his arguments are treated as nil and the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is considered.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36818 MFA No. 8176 of 2019

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 15.06.2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hunsur, in MVC No.220/2016. The petitioner-injured claimant met with an accident on 14.03.2015 and sustained injuries. Therefore, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/with 18% interest. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record and granted Rs.77,385/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization, fixing the liability on the insurance company.

¶30

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal, mainly contending that they have not issued any policy in favour of the claimant. The Tribunal, instead of dismissing the claim petition, has erred in fixing liability on the insurance company to pay compensation. The company adduced evidence to substantiate their evidence, but it was not considered by the Tribunal. It is further contended that R.W.3 – the owner of autorickshaw admitted that he purchased the said autorickshaw on 21.11.2014 and it was a transport vehicle and the fitness certificate of the said

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36818 MFA No. 8176 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

vehicle was valid up to 16.12.2014 and subsequently, it was not renewed. As on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle did not have a fitness certificate. In spite of producing the evidence, the Tribunal fixed liability against them. Therefore, requested to set aside the order.

¶34

The petitioner-injured claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and filed Exhibits P.1 to P.4. The respondents examined R.Ws. 1 to 3 and also filed Exhibits R.1 to R.9. R.W.1 is an Administrative Officer, R.W.2 is SDA in RTO, and R.W.3 is the owner of the vehicle. R.W.3 in the cross examination has fairly admitted that his vehicle had no fitness certificate as on the date of the accident. The fitness certificate issued was valid up to 16.12.2014 and the accident was occurred on 14.03.2015 and the said certificate was not renewed by him subsequently.

¶35

Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the offending vehicle had no fitness certificate. As such, the policy was not issued. Exhibit R.9 is the bogus policy, and it was not issued by the company. The insurance company also gave a complaint against the owner of the vehicle and FIR was

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36818 MFA No. 8176 of 2019

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

registered against him. But, the Tribunal held that mere filing of FIR is not sufficient to hold that it was a bogus policy. The serial number of the policy was also disputed by the appellant herein. R.W.2 in the evidence has stated that the transfer of ownership of the offending vehicle was done in favour respondent No.1 before the tribunal based on Ex.P.9. At the time of transfer of ownership, they will verify permit and collect the permit charges, and accordingly, held that the argument of the learned counsel for the insurance company cannot be accepted and the insurance company cannot be absolved from paying the liability. Therefore, it is for the petitioner-claimant or the owner of the vehicle to prove that there was valid subsisting policy as on the date of the accident. The owner has clearly admitted that there was no fitness certificate as on the date of accident, it was expired on 16.12.2014, three months prior to the date of accident and it was not renewed. The insurance company specifically stated that they never issued Exhibit R.9 to the owner of the vehicle, therefore, when there is no policy existing as on the date of accident, the question of fixing liability on the appellant-insurance company does not

¶39