Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager United India vs Basappa S/O Tirakappa Parvater on 6 June, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7391
MFA No. 101209 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101209 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SRI BASAPPA S/O TIRAKAPPA PARVATER,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ASUNDI VILLAGE IN RANEBENNUR TALUK,
DIST: HAVERI.
2. SMT. PUTTAWWA W/O BASAPPA PARVATER,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by R/O: ASUNDI VILLAGE IN RANEBENNUR TALUK,
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA KALMATH DIST: HAVERI.
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH 3. SRI MANJUNATH S/O GANGAPPA KOLUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KADARMANDALGI VILLAGE IN BYADGI TALUK,
DIST: HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.S.SANGATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI HAREESH S. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R3.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.06.2013 PASSED
IN MVC NO.67/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) AND
ETC.,.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7391
MFA No. 101209 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
This appeal is filed by the insurance company
challenging the judgment and award dated 29.06.2013,
passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur, in MVC No.67/2008,
questioning the liability fastened on it to pay the
compensation and for reducing the quantum of
compensation.
2. Heard the arguments and perused the material
placed before the Court.
3. The occurrence of accident, death of the deceased
Ramesh in a road traffic accident, are not in dispute in this
case.
4. The deceased died in a road traffic accident that
occurred on 23.04.2007. The claimants are parents of the
deceased.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7391
HC-KAR
5. In this case, the tribunal has awarded
compensation under various heads as under:
Sl. Heads. Amount in
No. (Rs.)
1. Towards loss of dependency. 4,68,000
2. Towards filial love and affection. 10,000
3. Towards medical expenses. 10,500
4. Towards transportation of dead 5,000
body.
5. Towards funeral expenses. 5,000
Total: 4,98,500
6. The tribunal has fastened liability on the
insurance company to pay compensation.
7. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the
driver of the offending vehicle was not holding driving licence
at the time of accident. Hence, there is breach of conditions
of policy as per section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the
insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
8. The claimants as well as the owner of the
offending auto rickshaw have not produced the driving
licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Whatever
driving licence produced is not that of the accused who
caused the accident, but that is of a different person.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7391
HC-KAR
Therefore, in the present case the driver of the offending
auto rickshaw was holding driving licence is not proved.
Therefore the insurance company is liable to be exonerated
and also in the charge sheet allegation against the accused is
made under section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
Investigating Officer is also examined, which prove the fact
that the driver of the offending auto rickshaw did not have
driving licence to drive the vehicle. Therefore, there is
infraction proved. Hence the Insurance Company is liable to
be exonerated from liability to pay compensation. The owner
of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation.
9. The insurance company is able to establish the
defence as per sub-section (2) of section 149 of M.V.Act.
However, the claimants are third party to the offending
vehicle. Hence as per sub-section (1), (5) and (7) of section
149 of the M.V.Act, and also as per the principle of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of PAPPU
AND OTHERS Vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER
reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208; NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SWARAN
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7391
HC-KAR
SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 3 SCC
297; and also as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in
the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
VS. YELLAVVA AND ANOTHER reported in 2020 ACJ
2560, the insurance company shall satisfy the claim at the
first instance to the claimants and then recover it from the
owner of the offending vehicle. However, the insurance
company is at liberty to file execution petition before the
jurisdictional executing Court as against the owner of the
offending vehicle and may seek attachment of movables or
immovable properties or both, till recovery is made and also
the recovery process can be as per the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD., VS. NANJAPPAN AND OTHERS, reported in 2004
AIR SCW 952.
10. With regard to quantum of compensation is
concerned, the accident is of the year 2007. The notional
income ought to have been considered as Rs.4,000/-, but
the tribunal has considered it as Rs.4,500/- per month.
Though the tribunal has committed an error in deducting
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7391
HC-KAR
1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses of the
deceased, the notional income would take care of the
submission of the learned counsel for the insurance
company. Therefore, there is no need to make any
interference with the quantum of compensation arrived at by
the tribunal in the absence of appeal by the claimants.
Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by the
tribunal is kept intact.
11. Therefore, the insurance company is directed to
deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment at the first
instance and then recover it from the owner of offending
vehicle as discussed above.
12. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated
29.06.2013, passed by the II Additional District
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7391
HC-KAR
and Sessions Judge at Haveri, sitting at
Ranebennur, in MVC No.67/2008, stands modified
to the extent as mentioned hereunder.
iii) The insurance company shall deposit
the amount within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
iv) The insurance company shall satisfy
the claim at the first instance to the claimants and
then recover it from the owner of the offending
vehicle.
v) The insurance company is at liberty to
file execution petition before the jurisdictional
executing Court as against the owner of the
offending vehicle and may seek attachment of
movables or immovable properties or both, till
recovery is made and also the recovery process
can be as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7391
HC-KAR
Nanjappan and others, reported in 2004 AIR
SCW 952.
vi) Send back the trial Court records along
with a copy of this judgment and award to the
tribunal.
vii) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the concerned tribunal for
disbursement.
viii) No order as to costs.
ix) Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
MRK
CT: BCK
