Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Manohar S/O Ningappa Yempale on 10 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2959
MFA No. 200471 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200471 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP: MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
STATION ROAD, GULBARGA.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANOHAR S/O NINGAPPA YEMPALE,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: MASON(GOUNDI)
R/O: VILLAGE KOHINOOR,
TQ: BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
Digitally signed
by RAMESH 2. MANWAR ALI S/O AYUB ALI SAYEED,
MATHAPATI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
Location: HIGH OWNER OF TATA SUMO
COURT OF BEARING NO. MH-24-C-1714
KARNATAKA R/O: OLD LATUR T/D LATUR,
DISTRICT : LATUR - 413 512.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.C.JAKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.11.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., BASAVAKALYAN, IN MVC
NO.282/2014 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2959
MFA No. 200471 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though appeal is listed for orders, with consent of learned
counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Challenging judgment and award dated 20.11.2018
passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Basavakalyan, in MVC no.282/2014, this
appeal is filed.
3. Sri S.S.Aspalli, learned counsel submitted appeal
was by insurer on limited ground i.e., liability. It was submitted
that occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of
insured vehicle by its driver, claimant sustaining injuries and
being entitled for compensation are not in dispute. Insurer is
only questioning fastening liability on insurer for entire amount
even though insurance policy availed was Act Liability Only
Policy limiting insurer's liability to an extent of Rs.50,000/-
only. Therefore, impugned award is required to be modified to
said extent.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2959
HC-KAR
4. Sri B.C.Jaka, learned counsel for respondent
no.1/claimant on other hand opposes appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment
and award.
6. From above and since insurer is in appeal
challenging its liability beyond Rs.50,000/-, point that would
arise for consideration is:
"Whether Tribunal was justified in fastening liability
on insurer to pay entire award amount?"
7. This is insurer's appeal challenging award on
liability. Occurrence of accident on 23.04.2013, involving
insured vehicle namely Tata Sumo bearing registration no.MH-
24/C-1714, meeting with accident near Algood village cross and
claimant sustaining injuries therein are not in dispute. In claim
petition filed by claimant under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant
examined himself as PW.1 and Dr.Sachin S/o Tanaji Vishvekar
as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P13.
Respondents examined two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and got
marked documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2959
HC-KAR
8. On consideration, Tribunal held claimant was
entitled for compensation assessed as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Towards medical and other Rs. 9,400/-
incidental expenses i.e.,
(Rs.9,400/-) Total amount of
Rs.9,400/-
2 Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000/-
3 Towards future loss of earning Rs.1,72,800/-
capacity due to the disability
4 Towards loss of income during Rs. 4,500/-
laid-up period
5 Towards loss of amenities in life Rs. 10,000/-
6 Towards conveyance, Rs. 10,000/-
nourishment and attendant
Total Rs.2,16,700/-
9. Tribunal held owner and insurer of offending vehicle
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation with interest.
10. Since insurer is challenging award on ground of
financial limit of liability, perusal of Ex.R2-Insurance policy
would be imperative. On perusal of certified copy of same made
available by learned counsel for appellant, it reveals that it is a
'liability only' policy wherein premium of Rs.225/- is paid to
cover liability in respect of nine unnamed passengers upto
Rs.50,000/- per person. Claimant herein is a passenger.
Therefore, liability of insurer would be to extent of Rs.50,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2959
HC-KAR
Since claimant is awarded Rs.2,16,700/-, clarification has to be
made that liability of insurer cannot exceed Rs.50,000/-.
11. Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative.
12. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. Appellant-insurer is held liable to pay only
Rs.50,000/- with interest to claimant. Tribunal
is directed to release said amount to claimant.
For remaining amount, claimant would require
to proceed against owner.
iii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted
to Tribunal for disbursement. Excess amount to
be refunded to insurer.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NB
Ct;Vk
