Karnataka High Court
Smt. Suvarna And Aors vs Laxmansingh And Ors on 26 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3406
MFA No. 200660 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200660 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUVARNA
W/O LATE AMBARAYA SHEKHAR (BABALAD),
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. SMT. PEERAMMA
W/O LATE NAGAPPA SHEKHAR (BABALAD),
AGE: 72 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
3. ABHISHEK
S/O LATE AMBARAYA SHEKHAR (BABALAD),
AGED: 19 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally signed
by RAMESH 4. AMITKUMAQR
MATHAPATI S/O LATE AMBARAYA SHEKAR (BABALAD)
Location: HIGH AGED: 4 ½ YEARS,
COURT OF OCC: NIL, APPELLANT NO.4 IS MINOR
KARNATAKA
U/G OF HIS NATURAL MOTHER -APPELLANT NO.1
I.E. SMT. SUVARANA
ALL R/O: H.NO. UHA-55 RAJAPUR ROAD,
NEAR VASANTA B.ED, COLLEGE,
SURYODAYA NAGAR,
SHAHABAD ROAD, KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3406
MFA No. 200660 of 2018
HC-KAR
AND:
1. LAXMANSINGH
S/O PREMSINGH,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER CUM DRIVER TRUCK NO.MP06-HC-1878,
R/O: H.NO.17159, GRAM BAD,
POST: KAKUA,
TQ & DIST: AGRA(U.P) - 282 009.
2. SANJEEVKUMAR
S/O SURENDRA PRAKASH SHARMA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF TRUCK NO.MP-06-HC-1878
(AS PER POLICY)
R/O: DUTTAPURA,
TQ & DIST: MORANA,
C/O: NEW VARANASI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
NO.21/35/B, FREE GUNJ, AGRA (U.P) - 223 007.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF
RS.13,93,700/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE
TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A. BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI, DATED 12.05.2017 IN
M.V.C.NO.1141/2015, BY FIXING THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF PAYING
COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.3, INSTEAD OF FIXING IT ON
RESPONDENT NO.2, 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
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3406
MFA No. 200660 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 12.05.2017
passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi
(for short, 'tribunal') in MVC no.1141/2015, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel submitted that
appeal was by claimants being dissatisfied with absolving
liability of insurer. It was submitted, on 18.05.2015, when
Ambaraya along with Jayashree were proceeding on motorcycle
reg.no.KA-32/EC-1402, driver of lorry reg.no.MP-06/HC-1878
drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against
motorcycle. In said accident, Ambaraya sustained fatal injuries
and died on spot. Claiming compensation, claim petition was
filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against owners
and insurer.
3. Owners did not contest, they were exparte, only
insurer contested claim petition denying issuance of insurance
policy and coverage as on date of accident. Even contributory
negligence and violation of policy conditions were also urged.
4. Based on contention, tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 was examined as PW.1 and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3406
HC-KAR
Exs.P.1 to P.9 were got marked. Insurer examined its official as
RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. On consideration,
tribunal held that accident had occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of lorry by its driver leading to death of
Ambaraya and claimants were entitled for compensation
assessed by it as follows :-
Loss of consortium `1,00,000/-
Loss of love and affection `75,000/-
Funeral and transportation expenses `20,000/-
Loss of dependency `22,11,300/-
Total `24,06,300/-
5. However, taking note of specific contention of
insurer that insurance policy sought to be relied upon by
claimants was tampered and as per Ex.R1-insurance policy,
vehicle was covered from 30.01.2012 to 30.01.2013 and under
Ex.R2 from 05.07.2016 to 05.07.2017, but as accident
occurred on 18.05.2015, which was not within coverage period,
it absolved insurer and fastened liability on owners. Dissatisfied
with finding claimants were in appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3406
HC-KAR
6. Learned counsel for claimants submitted that usage
of insured vehicle had led to death of Ambaraya. Even as per
insurer vehicle was insured for period prior and after date of
accident. Therefore, insurer ought to be directed to pay and
thereafter recover from insured.
7. On other hand, Sri S.S.Aspalli, learned counsel for
insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, tribunal had
appreciated fact that date of accident was neither covered
under Ex.R1 nor under Ex.R2. Therefore owner was rightly held
liable and there was no merit in appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
9. From above, since claimants appeal is only insofar
as finding of tribunal on liability, point that would arise for
consideration is :
"Whether finding of tribunal absolving insurer
from liability calls for interference ?"
10. Same is answered in negative, for following
reasons.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3406
HC-KAR
11. There is no dispute about fact that accident in
question occurred on 18.05.2015. Insurance Policy sought to be
relied upon by claimants was policy no.272805/31/2015/3460
stated to be issued for period from 31.01.2015 to 30.01.2015.
12. Before tribunal, specific plea is taken by insurer that
offending lorry was not insured as on date of accident, apart
from alleging contributory negligence against rider of
motorcycle and breach of terms of policy by insured.
13. Insurer examined its official as RW.1 who deposed
that said policy under Ex.R1 was for period from 30.01.2012 to
30.01.2013 and policy sought to be relied upon was
corrected/manipulated. It also produced subsequent insurance
policy as Ex.R2. Period of coverage in said policy from
06.07.2016 to 05.06.2017. Nothing contradicting assertion is
elicited in cross-examination.
14. In view of above, finding of tribunal absolving
insurer would be on due appreciation of material on record, no
grounds to interfere. Consequently, following :
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3406
HC-KAR
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SN
Ct;Vk
