Karnataka High Court
Cholamandalam vs Rajasab S/O Doddafeersab Hulmani on 26 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5562
MFA No. 22352 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22352 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
CHOLAMANDALAM,
M. S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
"DARE HOUSE", 2ND FLOOR, NO.234,
NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600001,
NOW REPRSENTED BY THE
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
CHOLAMANDALAM,
M. S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
UNIT NO.04, NINTH FLOOR, (LEVEL-06),
"GOLDEN HEIGHTS" COMPLEX,
59TH "C" CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
RAJAJINAGAR, 4TH "M" BLOCK,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
BANGALORE-560010.
Dharwad Bench
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJASAB
S/O. DODDAFEERSAB HULMANI,
AGE 60 YEARS,
OCC: ARICULTURE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5562
MFA No. 22352 of 2013
2. IBRAHIMSAB
S/O. RAJASAB HULMANI,
AGE 24 YEARS,
OCC: ARICULTURE.
3. SAIFULLASAB
S/O. RAJASAB HULMANI,
AGE 21 YEARS,
OCC: ARICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O.UKKUND VILLAGE,
TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.
4. SRI. MAHESHAPPA
S/O. BASAVANTAPPA MORALAD,
AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. UKKUND VILLAGE,
TQ: RANIBENNUR, DT: HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KANNUR, ADV. R1 & R2;
NOTICE TO R3 & R4 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1)
OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
11-03-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.416/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, RANEBEENUR,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.7,22,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5562
MFA No. 22352 of 2013
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
1. Respondent No.2/insurer of the offending auto
rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-27/A-2504 challenged
the impugned judgment and award dated 11.03.2013
passed in MVC No.416 of 2010 on the file Addl.MACT,
Ranebennur.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal.
3. The insurer challenged its liability to pay the
compensation on the ground that driver of the offending
vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence at the
time of accident. In addition to that the appellant has also
challenged the award on the ground that Tribunal had
taken the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month
instead of Rs.5,000/- per month.
4. Heard the arguments of learned advocate for
the appellant as well as respondent Nos.1 and 2.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5562
5. The fact of accident and death of
Smt.Sakaramma w/o Rajasab Hulmani aged 45 years is
not in dispute in the present appeal. It is true that the
driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective
driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle, therefore
he was charge sheeted under Section 3 read with Section
181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also the contention of
appellant that owner of the vehicle violated the permit
condition and carried additional passengers in the vehicle.
In view of the said reasons insurer is not liable to
indemnify the owner.
6. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Bijapur Vs. Yallavva w/o Yamanappa Dharanakeri
reported in 2020 (2) AKR 484, Full Bench of this Court
held that in the event of any violation of the terms and
conditions of policy of insurance, the insurer shall pay the
said amount of compensation and it can recover the same
from the owner of the vehicle and on that count there is
no need to set aside the impugned judgment and it is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5562
suffice if liberty is given to the insurer to recover the said
amount of compensation from the owner of the offending
vehicle, in an appropriate proceeding if it is able to show
that owner had violated terms and conditions of policy of
insurance.
7. Admittedly claimant was unable to prove the
income and hence Tribunal has assessed the compensation
on the basis of national income. The Tribunal has taken
income as Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per
month. Hence it may be corrected by taking income as
Rs.5,000/- per month.
8. Perused the materials. Looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, Tribunal had taken income of
Rs.6,000/- per month. The matter is of the year 2011 and
also much water is flown under the bridge and there is no
need to re-consider the said finding of the Tribunal.
Moreover in view of the law down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5562
(2017) 16 SCC 680 if compensation is re-considered,
then whatever amount awarded by the Tribunal is much
less. Considering these facts and circumstances, it is not a
fit case to interfere in the findings of the Tribunal.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and award dated
11.03.2013 passed in MVC No.416 of 2010
on the file Addl.MACT, Ranebennur is
modified in respect of liability.
iii. The appellant/insurer shall pay the
compensation to claimant and it is at liberty
to recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle, in an appropriate proceeding, if it is
able to show that there is violation of terms
and conditions of policy of insurance.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5562
iv. Registry is directed to transmit whatever
amount deposited by the appellant to the
Tribunal.
v. Send back the TCR along with copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
KGK /CT-AN
