Karnataka High Court
The Reliance General Ins Pvt. Ltd vs Krishna S/O Ramaswami Dharamar And Anr on 16 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3103
MFA No. 200454 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 200455 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200454 OF 2019 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200455 OF 2019
IN M.F.A.NO.200454 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INS., PVT., LTD.,
R/BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
CTS NO.472/474,
V.A.KALBURGI SQUARE,
DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR,
HUBLI - 580 029.
(NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, HUBLI)
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by RAMESH (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. GADARAVVA
W/O KALINGAPPA GANI,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: H.H.WORK,
2. KALINGAPPA
S/O TAMMANNA GANI,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
BOTH R/O: ARALADINNI,
TQ: B.BAGEWADI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3103
MFA No. 200454 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 200455 of 2019
HC-KAR
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
NOW RESIDING AT MUCHAKANDI,
TQ: DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 101.
3. MURTUJ
S/O HASANSAB BANAKAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: VEHICLE OF THE OWNER,
R/O: AMINGADI,
TQ: HUNAGUNDA,
DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
R3 IS SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.12.2018 IN M.V.C.NO.1186/2012
PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T.,
NO.XII AT VIJAYAPURA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.200455 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INS., PVT., LTD.,
R/BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
CTS NO.472/474,
V.A.KALBURGI SQUARE,
DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR,
HUBLI - 580 029.
(NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, HUBLI)
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3103
MFA No. 200454 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 200455 of 2019
HC-KAR
AND:
1. KRISHNA
S/O RAMASWAMI DHARAMAR,
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: ARALADINNI,
TQ: B.BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA
NOW RESIDING AT MUCHAKANDI,
TQ: DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. MURTUJ
S/O HASANSAB BANAKAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: VEHICLE OF THE OWNER,
R/O: AMINGADI,
TQ: HUNAGUNDA,
DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 101.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.12.2018 IN M.V.C.NO.1187/2012
PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T.,
NO.XII AT VIJAYAPUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI)
Challenging common judgment and award dated
01.12.2018 passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3103
HC-KAR
MACT- XII at Vijayapur, in MVC nos.1186/2012 and 1187/2012,
these appeals are filed.
2. Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel,
submitted appeals were by insurer challenging award on limited
grounds: firstly, about driver of insured auto rikshaw was not
having valid and effective driving licence as on date of accident.
Secondly, accident occurred when vehicle was plying beyond
permit area, but tribunal straight away held insurer jointly and
severally liable without any discussion or assigning reason and
thirdly, tribunal had awarded interest at 9% per annum, which
was excessive. Therefore, interference was warranted.
3. Sri Basavaraj R Math, learned counsel for
claimants, on other hand, would submit, copy of Ex.R3 would
indicate that driver of insured vehicle was having valid and
effective driving licence, to cover accident in question. Insofar
as violation of permit limit, it was submitted this Court in case
of Durugamma V. S.G. Naresh & Others, reported in 2017
(1) AKR 67, held breach of said condition would at best invite
fine and insurer cannot avoid liability. He also submitted
interest awarded was just and proper and sought for dismissal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3103
HC-KAR
4. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
5. From above since insurer is in appeal challenging
award on liability and also rate of interest, points that arise for
consideration are:
i) Whether tribunal was justified in holding
insurer liable to pay compensation?
ii) Whether tribunal was justified in awarding
interest at 9% per annum?
6. Point no.1:
At outset, it is seen, tribunal considered grounds urged
and negatived same. It took note of deposition of RWs.1 and 2
- RTOs of Bagalkote and Vijayapura respectively, RW.4 - AEE of
PWD, Hungund and RW.5- Revenue Officer, Hungund
Municipality, who deposed that distance between Alamatti and
Hungund was 30-40 kms and radius area of Hungund
municipality is 5.4 kms, to conclude that insurer had not
established violation of permit condition. As per ratio laid down
by this Court in Durugamma's case (supra), violation may
invite fine and insurer cannot avoid liability. Under such
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3103
HC-KAR
circumstances, it cannot be contended that tribunal has not
assigned reasons for fastening liability on insurer. Further
Ex.R3-licence would negative contention about non-possession
of licence.
Even contention that in judgment, cause title of judgment
petition would show dismissal of claim petition against
respondent no.1- insured and unless insured is held liable,
insurer cannot be made liable, would also not stand to reason,
as issuance of insurance policy is admitted. Therefore, point
no.1 is answered in affirmative.
7. Point no.2:
In view of decision of this Court in Shriram General
Insurance Company Limited, Rajasthan vs. Smt.Laxmi
and others reported in 2018 (4) AKR 808, wherein, it is
held that rate of interest in a motor accident claims cannot be
more than 6% in view of Section 30 of Code of Civil Procedure,
claimant would be entitled for interest at 6% per annum on
award amount from date of claim petition till deposit.
Therefore, point no.2 is answered in negative.
8. Consequently, following:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3103
HC-KAR
ORDER
MFA no.200454/2019 insofar as
reduction of interest on award amount is partly
allowed. Interest awarded by tribunal at 9%
per annum is reduced to 6% per annum on
award amount from date of claim petition till
deposit.
MFA no.200455/2019 insofar as liability
is dismissed.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal for payment.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
Psg*
Ct;Vk
