Karnataka High Court
The Iffco Tokio General Ins.Co.Ltd vs Naganna S/O. Basavanappa Chengu And Ors on 14 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6859
MFA No. 201012 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201012 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS BRANCH OFFICER,
G1, G2, G12 AND G13,
ASIAN ARCADE, NEAR ANAND HOTEL,
S.B. TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
(NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
BANGALORE)
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH 1. NAGANNA
COURT OF S/O. BASAVANAPPA CHENTI
KARNATAKA AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
AND KIRANA BUSINESS,
R/O VILLAGE MAHAGOAN,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI - 585 101.
2. ANBARAYA S/O. SHARANAYYA,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
& OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BRNG.
NO.KA-32/EC-2168,
R/O VILLAGE, MADBOOL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6859
MFA No. 201012 of 2018
HC-KAR
TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST.KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANTOSH BIRADAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2018 IN MVC
NO.1198/2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT, KALABURAGI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
against the judgment and award dated 02.03.2018 passed
by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T. Kalaburagi
[for short 'Tribunal'] in MVC No.1198/2015 questioning the
quantum of compensation and the liability to indemnify
the award amount.
2. The injured claimant aged 50 years, met with
an accident on 10.08.2015 and sustained grievous
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6859
HC-KAR
injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.16,50,000/-. The
Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record,
awarded the compensation of Rs.5,29,338/- with interest
at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization
and directed respondent No.2 - Insurance Company to pay
the compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the
Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.
3. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused
the materials available on record.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company that the rider of the insured
motorcycle bearing No.KA-32/EC-2168 was not holding
valid and effective driving license, which amounts to
violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and as
such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation. Further, it is contended that, as per Ex.P6,
claimant was fully drunken and negligent in riding the
vehicle. He relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6859
HC-KAR
case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaharunnisa
wherein, it has held that when the person had no valid and
effective license to drive the vehicle on day of accident and
was holding driving license to drive totally different class
of vehicle, then Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the
appeal
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1
- claimant supports the impugned judgment and award
and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. In Para No.14 of the impugned judgment it is
observed by the Tribunal that respondent No.2 has
produced the D.L. extract of the rider of the motorcycle as
per Ex.D3, and it was stated he has been authorized to
drive the non-transport and transport vehicles and also
the LMV and PSV Bus. RW1/witness of the Insurance
Company admitted that, holder of the said driving license
can ride the motorcycle also.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6859
HC-KAR
7. The Tribunal relied upon the Judgment of Co-
Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Srinivasagowda Anr. - Vs. - Sannamma & Ors.,
reported in (2011) ACC 416 (DB), wherein, it was held
that, it cannot be said that the driver having HMV licence
but driving two wheeler scooter at the time of accident
cannot be said that he was not having a valid and effective
DL. So, it is held that, respondent No.2 failed to prove
that the driver of the offending vehicle has no driving
licence. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon
the said admission of the respondent No.1 and thus,
submits that the Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation.
8. Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle is
having HMV licence and thus, he cannot ride the
motorcycle with the said licence. Therefore, the Insurance
Company is entitled to pay and recover. In Ex.P.6, it was
stated that, the claimant was in a drunken condition. But
as per the facts of the case, he met with accident due to
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6859
HC-KAR
the rash and negligent manner of the motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-32/EC-2168 and it not the case of the
Insurance Company that there is contributory negligence
by the claimant. Therefore, the said argument cannot be
accepted.
9. In the result, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The Insurance company is
directed to deposit Rs.5,29,338/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of the petition till the
realization;
(iii) On such deposit, the
respondent No.1/claimant is permitted to
withdraw the amount along with interest
accrued on it;
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6859
HC-KAR
(iv) The Insurance company is at
liberty to recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle;
(v) The amount deposited by the
Insurance Company before this Court is
directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal
forthwith.
Sd/-
(P. SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
SBS,SVH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84.1
CT:RJ
