Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Vijayakumar S/O Sharanappa Timmapur on 21 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16033
MFA No. 101151 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101151 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COM. LTD.,
LEGAL DEPARTMENT MONARK,
5TH FLOOR, INFANTARY ROAD, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
( BY SRI NAGARAJ C. KALLOORI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. SHARANAPPA TIMMAPUR
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. EDUCATION,
R/O. BINNAL VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583236.
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.11.27 2. SHIVAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA KAMMAR
10:40:08 +0530
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. OWNER,
R/O. PRASHANT NAGAR,
R/O. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583236.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE SERVED TO R1 AND R2
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
07.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.155/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, YELBURGA AND ETC.,.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16033
MFA No. 101151 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act'), challenging
the liability of insurer in respect of motor vehicle accident
that had taken place on 20.12.2013, when the claimant was
traveling in Tempo Trax bearing number KA-48/M-3079 at
1.00 p.m., on Yelburga to Kukanoor road near Sanaganal
village in respect of compensation awarded in MVC
No.155/2015 dated 07.04.2021 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge and M.A.C.T. Yelburga (for short 'Tribunal').
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as
they were before the Tribunal for sake of convenience and
clarity.
3. Claimant has filed the claim petition under
Section 166 of M.V Act claming compensation in respect of
the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16033
HC-KAR
that had taken place on 20.12.2013 at 01.00 p.m. when the
Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-48/M-3079 met with
an accident at Yelburga-Kukanur road near Sanganal village
near the lands of one Shankrappa Baligar and he was
inmate of the said Tempo Trax.
4. After service of notice, the owner of the vehicle
has not contested the petition and thus he was placed ex-
parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 Insurer
appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement
wherein it denied the entire averments made in petition
except admitting that the vehicle i.e., Tempo Trax bearing
registration No.KA-48/M-3079 was validly insured with
respondent No.2. But, its liability is subject to conditions,
exceptions and limitations therein. It further took
contention that the liability of respondent No.2 depends
only upon validity of owner to produce and to prove the
relevant documents. It also took contention that driver of
the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license
as on the date of accident. Respondent No.2 has taken
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16033
HC-KAR
further contention that the vehicle involved in the accident
is private Trax own use vehicle. But respondent No.1 used it
for hire and reward and thus violated the terms of policy
and thus it is not entitled to pay the compensation.
5. On behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as
P.W.1 apart from marking exhibits P.1 to P.13 before the
Tribunal. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1 was
examined apart from marking exhibits R.1 and R.2.
6. After recording evidence of both sides and
hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal has allowed
the claim petition in part directing the respondent No.2-
insurer to pay the compensation of Rs.31,050/- with
interest at 6% per annum to the claimant by holding that
the there was valid and effective insurance policy as on the
date of accident.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/respondent
No.2 insurer filed this appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16033
HC-KAR
8. After filing this appeal, notice is issued to both
claimant and owner of the vehicle in question. Even after
service of notice, both have not appeared and they
remained absent.
9. Heard arguments of learned counsel for appellant
Sri.Nagaraj C. Kollori.
10. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that
the vehicle in question is insured with respondent No.2 for
own use. But respondent No.1-owner has violated the terms
of the policy and used it for hire and reward. In this regard
there is specific averment in the complaint and also the
claimant in his cross-examination specifically deposed that
he had paid Rs.20-00 as charge to go to Kukanuru in the
said Tempo Trax vehicle along with him several other
passengers were in the said Tempo Trax. In this regard, he
relied on the judgment of Co-ordinate Branch of this Court
in MFA No.22717/2011 (MV) dated 29.09.2023 and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16033
HC-KAR
prayed for allowing the appeal and to exonerate the
appellant- insurer to pay the compensation.
11. Having heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for appellant and verifying the records, the only
point that would arise for consideration is:
"Whether the appellant/insurer be exonerated from its
liability due to violation of policy condition?"
12. Finding on this point is in 'affirmative' for the
following reasons:-
The date, place and time of accident or the nature of
injuries sustained by the claimant are not in dispute. The
only point that raised by the insurer is that the respondent
No.1 owner has violated the terms of the policy and thus it
is not liable to make payment.
13. On careful perusal of the certified copy of
deposition of PW.1 and complaint marked as Ex.P.2 before
the Tribunal and the copy of insurance, it is noticed that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16033
HC-KAR
the insurance policy was taken by respondent No.1 in
respect of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-48/M-3079
i.e. the offending vehicle for owner-driver. It is for own use
and premium is also paid in that regard. It is also an
admitted fact as per the complaint averments and the oral
evidence of claimant before the Tribunal that on that day he
was going to Kukannuru by paying Rs.20/- as hire charges.
Relevant portion of evidence of claimant reads as follows. "D
¢£À £Á£ÀÄ PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆjUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä gÀÆ.20 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÁdð PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
14. In Ex.P.2 there is a specific averment that on the
date of accident, the claimant who is the complainant
before police has stated that on that day he was sitting in
Trax bearing No. KA-48/M-3079 and other passengers were
also in that Trax and while going, it was met with an
accident. Thus the coupled reading of this complaint and
cross-examination of PW.1, it is crystal clear that the owner
has used the Tempo Trax for hire and reward but he has got
its registration only for the purpose of own use and not for
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16033
HC-KAR
hire and reward and it was not with Yellow board but it was
a White board vehicle. Under those circumstances, definitely
the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the
registration and also the insurance policy.
15. In this regard in the judgment of Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court at paragraph No.6 it is held as follows:
"6. It is the contention of the
appellant/Insurance Company that the claimant has
traveled in the Tempo Trax No.KA-23-M-3404 as a
fare-paid passenger. The claimant is examined as PW.1
and during the course of examination, he has admitted
that he has paid Rs.10/- fare to the driver of the Tempo
Trax traveling to Harugeri and also he admitted that
the other 78 persons have traveled and they have also
paid fare to the driver of the Tempo Trax. Therefore, it
is proved that the claimant has traveled in the said
Tempo Trax as a fare-paid passenger, but the
Insurance Policy has issued private car policy.
Therefore, the Tempo Trax No.KA-23-M-3404 is used
for hire and reward purpose. Therefore, there is
violation of conditions of insurance policy. Hence, the
Insurance Company being insurer of owner of Tempo
Trax No.KA-23-M-3404, is not liable to indemnify the
owner and pay compensation. Accordingly, he is
exonerated from payment of compensation. Hence, the
owner of Tempo Trax No.KA-23-M-3404 is held liable to
pay compensation."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16033
HC-KAR
16. By making aforesaid observation, the insurer was
exonerated from its liability to indemnify the owner in the
aforesaid judgment.
17. Even in the instant case also, as discussed
above, there is a clear violation of terms and conditions of
the registration of the vehicle as well as terms and
conditions of the insurance policy by using the own use
vehicle for hire and reward. Hence, the appellant/insurer is
not liable to indemnify the owner.
18. Even though such a specific contention was taken
up by the appellant before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has
not verified this point and casually observed that the vehicle
in question is covered with insurance policy and thereby
saddled liability on the insurance company which is
erroneous.
19. Hence, it is to be held that the insurance
company is not liable to indemnify the owner.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16033
HC-KAR
20. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1) The appeal filed under Section 173(1)
of the M.V. Act is allowed.
2) The judgment and award passed in
MVC No.155/2015 dated 07.04.2021 on the file
of Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Yelburga is
modified holding that the owner of Tempo Trax
bearing No.KA-48/M-3079 is liable to pay
compensation to the claimant and Insurance
company-respondent No.2 is exonerated from
paying compensation.
3) No order has to costs.
4) The amount in deposit, if any, be
refunded to the appellant-insurer on proper
identification.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
HMB
Ct-cmu
