Karnataka High Court
The Head C.S.C Iffco Tokio vs Mohd. Rafeek And Ors on 2 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2771
MFA No. 200922 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200922 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE HEAD C.S.C
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
G1, G2, G12 AND G13,
ASIAN ARCADE,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B. TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. MOHD. RAFEEK
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI S/O NOORUDDIN KALADAGI,
Location: HIGH AGE: 36 YEARS,
COURT OF OCC: LABOUR (NIL),
KARNATAKA
R/O: H.NO.62/1, DECCAN COLONY,
NEAR KHADRI CHOWK,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
2. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
S/O BAVASAB
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS & OWNER OF
AUTO NO.KA-32/A-0370 (ASR.C),
R/O: H.NO.9-61615, ALAND ROAD,
SHAIK DECCAN COLONY,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2771
MFA No. 200922 of 2020
HC-KAR
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
3. MAHADEV
S/O SHRIMANTHRAO
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS & OWNER OF
AUTO NO.KA-32/A-0370 (AS POLICY),
R/O: H.NO.2-31, BHAVANI NAGAR,
KALABURAGI- 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(V/O DATED 02.06.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 IS
HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PAYING TO ALLOW
THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 11.09.2019, IN M.V.C.NO.1032/2016 PASSED
BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T.,
KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 11.09.2019
passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T.,
Kalaburagi in MVC No.1032/2016, this appeal is filed.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2771
HC-KAR
2. Sri Subash Mallapur, learned counsel for appellant-
Insurance Company submits that occurrence of accident
involving insured vehicle due to rash and negligent driving by
its driver and claimant sustaining injuries in said accident are
not in dispute. Even quantum of compensation awarded under
various heads is also not in dispute. Main grounds of challenge
are that driver of insured vehicle was not having a valid and
effective driving license at time of accident and injured was an
unauthorized passenger in private vehicle.
3. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused
impugned judgment and award.
4. Accident in question occurred on 23.02.2016
involving Auto bearing no.KA-32/A-0370 due to rash and
negligent driving by its driver injuring claimant i.e., Mohd.
Rafeek. Claimant is stated to have taken treatment in hospital
spending money, but sustained permanent disability. These are
also not in dispute. Claimant filed claim petition seeking
compensation towards loss of earning capacity. He examined
himself as PW-1 and Dr. Ravi E. Shivaraya, as PW-2. He got
marked Ex.P-1 to P-10. Insurance company examined its
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2771
HC-KAR
official as RW-1 and got marked insurance policy as Ex.R-1 and
certified copy of statements of witnesses as Ex.R-2 and 3. On
consideration of same, Tribunal held claimant had established
occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of
driver and claimants sustained permanent disability. It
assessed compensation as follows and held Insurance Company
liable to pay:
Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/-
Attending Charges, Food and Rs.4,000/-
Conveyance
Loss of future income Rs.46,200/-
Loss of income during treatment Rs.7,000/-
Loss of amenities and nutrition Rs.10,000/-
food
Total Compensation Rs.87,200/-
5. Before Tribunal, it is seen claimant produced FIR,
Complaint, Charge sheet and Crime Details Form as Ex.P-1 to 4
to substantiate contention about rash driving of driver. It is
seen that police after investigation filed charge-sheet against
driver for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of
IPC read with Section 187 of M.V.Act.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2771
HC-KAR
6. It is seen that there is no charge against driver
about driving vehicle without valid driving licence. Insurer has
not examined Regional Transport Officer or produced notices
issued to owner for production of driving licence. While passing
impugned award, Tribunal has taken note of same and held
Insurer liable to pay compensation. Insofar as contention about
injured claimant being unauthorized passenger, there is no
material placed on record. Claimant has stated that he was a
labourer in goods auto.
7. Perusal of Insurance Policy (copy of which was
made available by learned counsel for appellant) indicates that
seating capacity of vehicle is 'two' which would reflect that
another passenger apart from driver would be covered. Since it
is a goods vehicle other passenger could only be employee.
While passing impugned award, Tribunal has taken note of
contention and held Insurer failed to establish claimant was
unauthorized passenger. Said view appears to be in accordance
with law and is not established to be contrary to material on
record. Hence, I do not find any justification to entertain
appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2771
HC-KAR
8. Appeal is dismissed at stage of admission.
Amount in deposit be transmitted to Tribunal for
disbursal. Balance amount be deposited within a period of eight
weeks.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NJ/SN
Ct: Vk
