Karnataka High Court
Hdfc Ergo Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd vs Ganapathi And Anr on 11 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3832
MFA No. 202695 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202695 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
# 82, 6TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD,
K.P.AGRAHARA, GANDHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU.
(NOW REPRESENTED BY
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI)
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RAMESH 1. GANAPATHI
MATHAPATI S/O SHIVARAM KORAVI,
Location: HIGH AGE:33 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HOOVINBHAVI,
TQ: CHINCHOLI,
DIST: KALABURAGI,
NOW R/AT: PRASHANT NAGAR (A),
RAJAPUR, KALABURAGI - 585 401.
2. MARUTHI
S/O SIDDAPPA VALIKAR,
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER AND OWNER OF VEHICLE
NO.KA-43/J-2222,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3832
MFA No. 202695 of 2019
HC-KAR
R/O: TADAPALLI,
POST. PASTAPUR,
TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K. BABASHETTY, ADV., FOR R1;
SRI ANAND V. TURE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2019 IN
MVC NO.607/2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 01.10.2019
passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at
Kalaburagi (for short, 'tribunal'), in MVC no.607/2016, this
appeal is filed.
2. Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel
submitted, appeal was by insurer challenging award on liability.
It was submitted, as per claimant on 25.03.2015, when
claimant was riding pillion on motorcycle no.AP-25/AC-5974,
and they were returning to Hoovinbhavi village, rider of another
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3832
HC-KAR
motorcycle no.KA-43/J-2222, rode it in rash and negligent
manner and dashed against claimant's motorcycle causing
accident. In accident, claimant sustained several fractural
injuries and was admitted to hospital. Despite taking treatment,
he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical
disability. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166
of Motor Vehicles Act, against owner and insurer of offending
motorcycle.
3. On contest, wherein, owner/insurer opposed claim
petition denying entire claim petition averments, alleged
contributory negligence against rider of claimant's motorcycle
and denied liability on ground of violation of terms and
conditions of policy, tribunal framed issues and recorded
evidence, claimant examined himself and Dr.Ravi E.Shivaraya
as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. Insurer
examined its official and RTO as RWs.1 and 2 and got marked
Exs.R1 to R3.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent riding of insured motorcycle
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3832
HC-KAR
by its rider, claimant had sustained injuries and was entitled for
compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
a. Towards injury pain and suffering `40,000/-
b. Towards medical expenses `600/-
c. Towards future medical expenses `20,000/-
d. Towards food and extra nourishment `1,000/-
and medical attendant
e. Towards conveyance `3,000/-
f. Towards loss of income during `14,000/-
treatment
g. Towards permanent disability `1,42,800/-
h. Deprivation of future amenities `20,000/-
Total compensation `2,41,400/-
5. Referring to copy of learners licence stated to have
been produced, it overruled objection of insurer on ground of
liability and held insurer liable to pay same. Aggrieved, insurer
was in appeal.
6. It was submitted, as per insurer, rider of insured
motorcycle was not having driving licence to ride motorcycle as
on date of accident. It had in fact examined official from RTO
office as RW.2 and produced Ex.R3 - driving licence extract of
rider of insured motorcycle. Said licence did not indicate that he
was having valid licence to ride motorcycle with gear as on date
of accident. It was submitted, though claimant alleged that
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3832
HC-KAR
rider of motorcycle was having learners licence and produced
photocopy of same, same was not got marked. Therefore,
holding insurer liable to pay compensation was contrary to law
and sought for allowing appeal.
7. On other hand, Sri Sharanabasappa K.Babshetty,
learned counsel appearing for claimant and Sri Anand V.Ture,
learned counsel for rider/owner of offending motorcycle
opposed appeal. It was firstly submitted, rider of insured
motorcycle was having learners licence and copy of same was
produced by claimant before tribunal. Therefore, tribunal was
justified in fastening liability on insurer based on same.
8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment and award and records.
9. From above and since, insurer is in appeal
challenging award on liability, point that would arise for
consideration is:
"Whether tribunal was justified in holding insurer
liable to pay compensation, even when rider of
insured vehicle did not have valid and effective
driving licence as on date of accident ?"
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3832
HC-KAR
10. As noted above, in order to substantiate actionable
claim against owner/insurer of motorcycle no.KA-43/J-2222,
claimant relied upon police investigation records namely, FIR,
complaint and charge-sheet marked as Exs.P1 to P3. Perusal of
Exs.P1 to P3 would reveal that rider of insured motorcycle
though charge-sheeted for causing accident due to rash and
negligent riding was not charge-sheeted for non-possession of
valid and effective driving licence as on date of accident.
However, insurer examined its official as RW.1 who deposed in
support of contention of insurer that it was not liable
compensation on account of violation of terms and conditions of
policy namely non possession of driving licence as on date of
accident. Insurer also examined an official from RTO office,
Bengaluru as RW.2 and got marked copy of driving licence of
respondent no.1-owner/rider as Ex.R3. In his deposition, RW.2
stated about issuance of driving licence as per Ex.R3 to rider.
He also stated about issuance of learning licence. In cross-
examination by claimant he stated that he was unable to state
about period of such learner's licence for want of document to
that effect at time of deposition.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3832
HC-KAR
11. While passing impugned award, tribunal took note
of photocopy of learners licence no.KA0220150012930/710/15.
Period mentioned therein is from 25.02.2015 to 24.08.2015.
Particulars of date of enrolment as 17.02.2015 with Prakash
Driving School, Bengaluru and payment of challan amount of
`30/- on 25.02.2015 are also indicated. Same bears
photograph of licensee with seal of RTO. However it was
attested true copy of licence. There is no explanation by
claimant for non-production of original. Tribunal referred to
above material and held respondent no.2 - insurer had failed to
establish that rider of motorcycle did not have driving licence to
ride motorcycle as on date of accident. Provisions of Motor
Vehicles Act mandate that before filing application for issuance
of permanent licence, applicant is required to have a learners
licence for a minimum three months prior to filing of
application. Period of learner's licence mentioned in copy
produced would satisfy said requirement. Merely on account of
RW.2 being unable to confirm period of learner's licence, it
would not be appropriate to over come finding of tribunal based
on appreciation of material especially assertion by RW.2 about
rider of insured motorcycle being issued with learners licence. If
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3832
HC-KAR
rider of motorcycle was possessing learners licence, matter falls
within folds of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and
Ors.1
12. In view of above, I do not find any merit in appeal.
Hence, point for consideration is answered in negative.
Consequently, following :
ORDER
i) Appeal is dismissed, judgment and award
dated 01.10.2019 passed by I Additional Senior
Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Kalaburagi in
MVC no.607/2016 is confirmed.
ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted
to tribunal for payment.
iii) Appellant shall deposit balance compensation
before tribunal, if not already deposited within
six weeks from today.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SN
(2004) 3 SCC 297
