Karnataka High Court

The Manager, Hdfc Ergo Gic Ltd vs Naveen H J on 7 August, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:30637
                                                        MFA No. 3702 of 2021


                      HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

                                             BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3702 OF 2021 (MV-D)
                      BETWEEN:

                      THE MANAGER,
                      HDFC ERGO GIC LTD
                      NO. 371/1A, 3RD FLOOR
                      PRESTIGE SHOPPING ARCHADE
                      RAMASWAMY CIRCLE
                      MYSORE CITY
                      HDFC ERGO GIC LTD
                      2ND FLOOR, NO 25/1
                      BUILDING NO. 2
                      SHANKARNARAYANA BUILDING
                      MG ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
                                                                ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
Digitally signed by
ANJALI M              1.   NAVEEN H J
Location: High
Court of Karnataka         LATE JAVAREGOWDA
                           AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

                      2.   BHAGYA
                           W/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA
                           AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

                           BOTH ARE R/AT
                           HEGGADAHALLI VILLAGE
                           PANDAVAPURA TALUK
                           MANDYA DISTRICT

                      3.   THE MANAGER
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:30637
                                      MFA No. 3702 of 2021


HC-KAR



      ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
      INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
      NO. 133, 3RD FLOOR
      SHIKHA TOERS. RAMAVILASA ROAD
      MYSORE-570024
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY    SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
       SRI.RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3.)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.30.11.2019 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1140/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.2,00,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR


                    ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and

award dated 30.11.2019 passed in MVC No.1140/2015 by

the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, has

preferred this appeal questioning the liability fastened on

the appellant to pay the compensation.

2. The facts which are not in dispute between both

the sides are that, the claimants No.1 and 2 being the

legal heirs of deceased Javaregowda filed the claim

NC: 2025:KHC:30637

HC-KAR

petition under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988

seeking compensation of Rs.41,21,000/- with interest

thereon at the rate of 24% per annum on account of

death of Javaregowda in a road traffic accident that took

place on 15.05.2015 at 2.30pm.

3. It is stated in the claim petition that, deceased

Javaregowda on the ill-fated day was driving his tractor-

trailer bearing Registration No. KA-11-TA-1202 and

No.KA-11-TS-1653 along with one Punith Gowda to bring

the soil from Vedesamudra village. It is stated that, when

they came to the land of Honnegowda, suddenly driver of

the tractor i.e., deceased Javaregowda lost his control

over the said tractor and toppled down in a stream (halla).

Due to this, Javaregowda died on the spot itself. The

inmate of the tractor-trailer Punith Gowda died in the

hospital. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased

Javaregowda and have spent substantial money i.e.,

Rs.20,000/- towards transportation of dead body and

spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards funeral and other expenses.

NC: 2025:KHC:30637

HC-KAR

It is contended that, because of the death of a deceased

Javaregowda in the said accident, the claimants have

suffered lot and put to mental agony. The deceased

Javaregowda was earning about Rs.25,000/- per month

and thus, they pray for awarding compensation as prayed.

4. Before the Tribunal, both the respondents

appeared and filed their detailed written objections. So far

as respondent No.1 is concerned, it is contended that, it

has issued policy in respect of the offending vehicle i.e.,

which is tractor in respect of which 'liability only' policy

was issued. It is contended that, if at all there is any

liability, it is limited to the terms and conditions of the

policy and subject to valid and effective driving license of

the driver of the tractor. The other assertions are denied

by the respondent No.1. It is contended that the said

accident has taken place only because of the rash and

negligent driving of the late Javaregowda and therefore

the claim so made by the claimants is not sustainable

against respondent No.1.

NC: 2025:KHC:30637

HC-KAR

5. It is contended by respondent No.2 that, driver

of the said offending vehicle was not holding the effective

driving license at the time of the accident. The policy in

respect of trailer was in force from 21.06.2014 to

20.06.2015 and its liability is subject to terms and

conditions of the policy. The said accident has taken place

because of the negligence on the part of the Javaregowda

himself. Hence, both the respondents are not liable to pay

the compensation. Hence, it is prayed by the respondents

to dismiss the appeal.

6. Based upon the rival pleadings, learned tribunal

framed three issues and one additional issue.

7. Before the Tribunal, to prove the case of the

claimants, one Naveena and Nagesha being the claimant

No.1 and so called eyewitness were examined as PWs 1

and 2 and got marked documents as exhibits as P1 to P9.

To rebut the evidence of the claimants, the respondents

have examined two witnesses one Madhumathi Hegde and

NC: 2025:KHC:30637

HC-KAR

one S K Sandeep as RWs 1 and 2 and marked exhibits as

R1 to R5.

8. On hearing the arguments and on evaluation of

the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that, the

petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum,

fastening the liability on Respondent No.1 to pay the

compensation amount and dismissed the claim petition

against Respondent No.2. Now respondent No.1 is before

the Court challenging fastening 'liability only'.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri. B

Pradeep submits that, as the policy issued was a 'liability

only' policy, therefore the fastening liability on respondent

No.1 is incorrect and the accident occurred was due to the

deceased himself. Therefore, the liability is not covered to

pay the compensation as ordered by the Tribunal.

Further, he submits that, the Tribunal has wrongly

NC: 2025:KHC:30637

HC-KAR

fastened the liability on Respondent No.1., hence prays to

allow this appeal.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

claimants submits that, the liability is rightly fastened on

the Respondent No.1 and compensation so awarded is

very much meager. He would further submits that, if at all

the Court comes to the conclusion that, respondent No.1 is

not liable to pay the compensation, a liberty may be given

to the claimants to approach the insurance company to get

their claim i.e., personal accident claim.

11. On scrupulous reading of the records made

available, it is not in dispute that, the accident took place

on 15.05.2015 because of toppling down of tractor-trailer

bearing Registration No. KA-11-TA-1202 and No.KA-11-

TS-1653. In the said accident, Javaregowda being the

driver of the said tractor, died on the spot itself. It is also

not in dispute that, 'personal accidental coverage' was

given by the respondent No.1. - Insurance company has

NC: 2025:KHC:30637

HC-KAR

issued policy in respect of personal accident i.e, in the

name of Javaregoweda. If that is so, the Section 147 of

the Motor Vehicles Act comes into operation. As rightly

submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that, the

deceased himself was the owner/driver of the vehicle, the

risk of the owner is not required to be covered under

Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and remedy of the

claimants is somewhere else i.e., before the Insurance

Company itself and they cannot maintain the petition filed

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking

compensation.

12. It is rightly submitted by learned counsel for

the appellant that, the appellant is not required to

indemnify the liability of the insurance of third parties and

it is not at its risk. The appellant is required to indemnify

the liability of the insured of third parties and not personal

risk. In support of the submission learned counsel for the

appellant relies on judgment of the Apex Court.

NC: 2025:KHC:30637

HC-KAR

13. In view of the clear mandate of provisions of

Section 147 of Motor vehicles Act, as well as the risk being

not covered under the policy so issued by Respondent

No.1, the Tribunal has wrongly concluded that, it is

respondent No.1 to pay the compensation. Therefore, in

view of the clear mandate of Section 147 of the Motor

vehicles Act, the remedy of the claimants is to approach

the concerned insurance company and they cannot

maintain the claim petition.

14. Therefore, accepting the grounds urged in the

appeal memo as well as the submissions made by learned

counsel for the appellant, this appeal deserves to be

allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated

30.11.2019 passed in MVC No.1140/2015 by the Senior

Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, is required to be set

aside. Accordingly, the following:

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30637

HC-KAR

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The judgment and award dated 30.11.2019 passed in MVC No.1140/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, is hereby set aside.


         (iii) However,   liberty       is        reserved      to   the
             claimants    to   approach                the    concerned
             insurance    company            if   at    all   they   are
             entitled to any compensation.

(iv) The insurance company shall consider the claim of the claimants irrespective of delay caused in the claim in view of pendency of these claim petition and appeal before the tribunal and this Court.