Karnataka High Court
The Manager Iffco-Tokio General ... vs Pedda Bheemla Naik And Anr on 4 September, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5145
MFA No. 200020 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200020 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
G1, G2, G12 AND G13,
ASIAN ARCADE, NEAR ANAND HOTEL,
S.B.ROAD, KALABURAGI,
TQ: AND DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 102.
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY
ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
IFFCO - TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER
SRI SHANTHI TOWERS
5TH FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, 141,
Digitally signed by
KHAJAAMEEN EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR,
MALAGHAN BANGALORE - 560 084.
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PEDDA BHEEMLA NAIK
S/O BUDDYANAIK,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: LABOUR,
R/O: H.NO.3-17, MADDUR,
MANDAL KAJIPURAM,
MAHEBOOB NAGAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5145
MFA No. 200020 of 2022
HC-KAR
ANDHRA PRADESH,
NOW AT KALANUR TANDA,
TQ: DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 102.
2. DEGAVATH GOPAL
S/O D.SITHYA NAIK,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING
REG. NO.AP-22-AH-4043,
R/O: H.NO. KONDAPUR MANDAL
DHENWADA, DIST: MAHEBOOB NAGAR,
STATE TELANGANA - 509 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN
MVC NO.276/2018 BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT, KALABURAGI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 06.05.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.276/2018 BY
THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI AND
ETC.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance company
challenging its liability to pay the award amount in the
Judgment dated 06.05.2021 passed in MVC No.276/2018 by
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5145
HC-KAR
the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi (for
short, 'the tribunal').
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. In spite of service of notice, the respondent Nos.1
and 2 remained absent and un-represented.
4. The facts leading to filing of the claim petition by
the respondents/claimants is that, one Degavath
Kamalamma has succumbed to the injuries sustained in a
road traffic accident which occurred on 02.08.2017 at about
6.00 p.m. On that day, she was engaged in loading and
unloading of agricultural products in a tractor and trailer
bearing registration No.AP-22/AH-4043/TS06/ER-7561 (for
short 'T.T.Unit'). When the said T.T.Unit reached near
Parpally village Sivar Koilkonda, the driver of T.T.Unit drove
it in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and lost
control over the vehicle due to which, the T.T.Unit turned
turtle and the said Kamalamma sustained grievous injuries.
She was shifted to Hospital and later she succumbed to the
injuries in the hospital.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5145
HC-KAR
5. Legal heir of the said Kamalamma filed the claim
petition before the tribunal. The appellant was respondent
No.2 before the tribunal and filed its objections, wherein, it
contended that, the driver of the T.T.Unit had no valid and
effective driving licence. The tribunal after recording the
evidence has assessed the compensation and passed the
impugned award, whereunder, the compensation has been
awarded in a sum of Rs.8,14,000/- with interest and directed
the Insurance company to pay the compensation amount
and recover the same from owner.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that, the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of
the T.T.Unit for the offence under Section 181 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short 'the Act, 1988) and that itself
indicates that, the driver of the T.T.Unit was not holding any
licence at the time of the accident. He submits that, there is
a fundamental violation of policy condition and therefore, the
Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. He
further submits that, even, the Insurance company is not
liable to pay and recover the compensation awarded by the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5145
HC-KAR
tribunal. On that point, he places reliance on a decision of
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hemalatha @
Hema @ Hemavathi W/o. Renukappa and others Vs.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
[NC:2023:KHC:45597-DB], and also a decision of the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Manager,
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Devaraj S/o. Sharanappa and others,
[NC:2025:KHC-K:752].
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant, this Court has perused the impugned Judgment
and the trial Court records.
8. The appellant/Insurance company has not
challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the
tribunal.
9. On perusal of Ex.P.3-certified copy of the charge-
sheet indicates that, the charge-sheet has been filed against
the driver of the T.T.Unit for the offence under Section 181
of the Act, 1988. The said aspect itself indicates that, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5145
HC-KAR
driver of the T.T.Unit was not holding driving licence at the
time of the accident. Therefore, there is a breach of policy
condition and the Insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation awarded by the tribunal.
10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Hemalatha (supra), has held that, if there is no driving
licence, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation amount and recover the same from the owner
of the vehicle. In the case of New India Assurance
Company Limited Vs. Yallavva, reported in ILR 2020
Kar. 2239, it has been held that, the Insurance company is
liable to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the
same from the owner of the vehicle. The Division Bench
while rendering the Judgment in Hemalatha (supra), has
not taken into consideration the decision of the Full Bench
passed in the case of Yallavva (supra), which requires to be
followed.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.
Ananthi and others Vs. P. Venkatesan and anothers, in
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5145
HC-KAR
Civil Appeal No.1175/2022 decided on 29.01.2025 at
paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 has held as under:
"7. In so far as the liability on the Insurance
company is concerned, the Courts below have rightly held
that since the driver of the offending vehicle was not
having any license to drive the same, the Insurance
company cannot be held liable to compensate.
8. We find no error or illegality in the said part
of the order also. However, while granting the
compensation of Rs.10,36,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs thirty-
six thousand) with interest, the High Court has not
directed the Insurance company to pay the sum and to
recover the same from the owner/driver.
9. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Vs. Swaran Singh and Ors. : (2004) 3 SCC 297, it has
been laid down that the claimant should not be allowed to
suffer and run about to release the compensation
awarded and that, it is in the fitness of things that the
Insurance company in such cases should first pay and
then recover the amount."
12. Considering the said aspect, the Judgment passed
by the tribunal directing the Insurance company to pay the
compensation amount to the claimant and recover the same
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5145
HC-KAR
from the owner of the vehicle does not requires any
interference.
13. In the result, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
SVH
