Karnataka High Court
The General Manager, The National ... vs Sidramappa @ Sidramanna And Anr on 17 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1658
MFA No. 200497 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 200491 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200497 OF 2021 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200491 OF 2021 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.200497/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
STATION ROAD, YADGIR,
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY ITS,
DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Digitally signed
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BILGUNDI COMPLEX,
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA
OPP: MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
KALABURAGI-585 102.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NARASAPPA @ SANNA NARASAPPA
S/O YALLAPPA YADAV,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O CHINTAKUNTA, TALUK GURUMITKAL,
DIST. YADGIR-585 214.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1658
MFA No. 200497 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 200491 of 2021
2. KUPENDRA @ KHUBENDRA S/O SHARANAPPA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND
OWNER OF JEEP NO.KA-17/F-0402,
R/O VILLAGE K. HOSALLI,
TALUK AND DIST. YADGIR-585 214.
...RESPONDENTS
(SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.312/2018 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT II, AT
YADGIR.
IN MFA NO.200491/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
STATION ROAD, YADGIR,
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY ITS,
DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BILGUNDI COMPLEX,
OPP: MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SIDRAMAPPA @ SIDRAMANNA
S/O RAMANNA @ RAMAPPA,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1658
MFA No. 200497 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 200491 of 2021
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O CHINTAKUNTA, TALUK GURUMITKAL,
DIST. YADGIR-585 214.
2. KUPENDRA @ KHUBENDRA S/O SHARANAPPA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER
OF JEEP NO.KA-17/F-0402,
R/O VILLAGE K. HOSALLI,
TALUK AND DIST. YADGIR-585 214.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANESH NAIK, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. M.S. ASTAGI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 313/2018 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-II AT
YADGIR.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants-
Insurance Company in both appeals. None appears for the
respondents.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1658
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in
MVC No.312 and 313/2018 dated 30.01.2020 by the
learned Senior Civil Judge & MACT-II, Yadgir (for short,
'the Tribunal'), the respondent No.2-Insurance Company is
in appeals before this Court.
3. The short point that is raised by learned counsel
appearing for the appellants is that, though the policy
covering the vehicle owned by the respondent No.1 is an
Act Only Policy, the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability
on the appellant-Insurance Company overlooking the
limits of the Act Only Policy.
4. The petitioners in both the cases i.e. MVC
Nos.312 and 313/2018 were travelling in a Jeep bearing
No.MH-17/402 from Yadgir to Chintakunta. Near Kotagera
village, the driver of the said Jeep drove the same in a
high speed and negligent manner and it turned turtle on
the road resulting in an accident where the petitioners
sustained injuries. The reason for such accident was that,
the agriculturists had sorghum head (harvested crop) on
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1658
the road and as such, the Jeep skidded and turned turtle.
The petitioners sustained the injuries.
5. The claim petitions were opposed by the
respondent No.1 contending that there was no such
negligence on the part of the driver and even if there is
any negligence, the vehicle was covered by insurance and
as such, the liability has to be fastened upon the
respondent No.2.
6. The respondent No.2 in its written statement
contended that the driver of the Jeep was not having a
valid driving licence, the policy issued was an Act Only
Policy, which did not cover the inmates of the Jeep, the
compensation claimed by the petitioners was highly
exorbitant, imaginary and untenable.
7. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues in both
cases and petitioners in both cases were examined as
PWs.1 and 3 and a Medical Officer, who had assessed the
disability was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P12 were
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1658
marked. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company
examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1.
8. The Tribunal after hearing both sides,
proceeded to award the compensation of Rs.25,000/- and
Rs.2,09,000/- in MVC No.312/2018 and 313/2018
respectively by fastening the liability upon the respondent
No.2-Insurance Company. Being aggrieved by the same,
the appellants-Insurance Company is before this Court in
appeals.
9. It is relevant to note that the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal nowhere discussed about the
contention of the appellants, which was raised in
paragraph No.4 of the written statement. The appellant-
insurance company in para 4 of its written statement has
contended as below:
"4. This respondent submits that the
petitioner himself was careless and
negligent in driving his auto and caused
the alleged accident and due to his own
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1658
negligence only the alleged accident
was occurred and the driver of Tata
ACE bearing No.KA-25/D-9648 was not
at all contributed any negligence to the
alleged accident. Hence, there was no
negligence or careless of the driver of
sadi Tata ACE Vehicle as alleged by the
petitioner. Therefore, this respondent
is not at all liable to pay compensation
to the petitioner under fault or no fault
liability. Hence, the petition deserves
to be dismissed as against this
respondent with costs."
10. The policy of the vehicle involved in the
accident is produced at Ex.R1. A perusal of Ex.R1 would
show that it is Act only policy and as such the inmates of
the vehicle are not covered. Obviously no extra premium
has been paid to cover the personal injuries of the
inmates. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the tribunal to
dwell upon the question of the coverage of the Act only
policy. No where the tribunal discuss about the nature of
the policy and its coverage.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1658
11. This Court in MFA No.174 of 2018 dated
24.11.2023 has considered the law on the point. Relying
on a Catena of decisions, this Court came to the
conclusion that an Act only policy do not cover the inmates
of the vehicle. While coming to such conclusion, this Court
has placed reliance on following decisions.
1) New India Assurance Company Limited Vs.
Asha Rani and others, (2003) 2 SCC 223.
2) Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Sudharkaran K.V., 2008 ACJ 2045.
3) New India Assurance Company Limited Vs.
C.M.Jaya and others, 2002 ACJ 271.
4) Amrit Lal Sood and another Vs. Kaushalya
Devi Thapar and others, 1998 ACJ 531.
5) National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270 (SC).
6) Rikhi Ram and another Vs. Smt. Sukhrania
and others, AIR 2003 SC 1446.
7) T.V.Jose (Dr.) Vs. V.Chacko P.M., (2001) 8
SCC 748.
8) Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Sudhakaran K.V, (2008) 7 SCC 428.
9) United India Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Thilak Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 404.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1658
10) Branch Manager, New India Assurance
Company Limited Vs. Mahadev Pandurang
Patil, ILR 2011 Karnataka 820.
11) National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2917 SC
5157.
12. In that review of the matter, the appeals
succeed. Resultantly the liability has to be fastened upon
the respondent No.1. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeals are allowed.
(ii) The appellant-insurance company is
absolved from paying the compensation
amount to the petitioners.
(iii) The respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle
is liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioners as ordered by the Tribunal.
(iv) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal
remains unaltered.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1658
(v) The amount deposited before this Court is
ordered to be refunded to the appellants.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SDU,SMP
CT: AK
