Karnataka High Court

Shriram General Insurance vs Gouramma W/O Bharamappa on 16 September, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175
                                                      MFA No. 102484 of 2014


                 HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                          DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                             BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
                  MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102484 OF 2014 (MV-D)

                 BETWEEN:
                 1.   SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
                      CO. LTD., E-8, EPIP RICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
                      SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE
                      NOW R/BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
                      SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                      LEGAL CELL, E-8, EPIP, RIICO INDUSTRIAL
                      AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR-302022, RAJASTHAN.
                                                                   ...APPELLANT
                             (BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADV)
                 AND:
                 1.   SMT. GOURAMMA W/O BHARAMAPPA
                      BHANDARI, AGE: 31 YEARS,
                      OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MOTEBENNUR,
                      TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.

                 2.   HONNAMMA D/O. BHARAMAPPA BHANDARI
                      AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                      R/O. MOTEBENNUR, TQ: BYADAGI
                      DIST: HAVERI.
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
                 3.   HONNAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA BHANDARI
                      AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
Location: HIGH        R/O. MOTEBENNUR, TQ: BYADAGI
COURT OF              DIST: HAVERI.
KARNATAKA
                 4.   SRI. NEELAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA BHANDARI
                      AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
                      R/O. MOTEBENNUR, TQ: BYADAGI
                      DIST: HAVERI.

                 5.   SRI. MALATESH S/O. HEMAPPA TALAWAR
                      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
                      R/O. GUTTALA, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.
                                 -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175
                                        MFA No. 102484 of 2014


HC-KAR



6.   SRI. RAJAPPA MARALA S/O. GUDDAPPA
     AGE: 40YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
     R/O. HAVANUR, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS

              (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI,
              ADV FOR R1 TO R4 & NOTICE TO R5 & R6 ARE SERVED)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:10.06.2014, PASSED IN MVC.
NO.91/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & IT COURT &
MEMBER, AMACT., BYADGI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.9,44,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

                          ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act,' for

short) by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment

and award dated 10.06.2014 passed in MVC No.91/2011 by

the learned Senior Civil Judge & IT Court & AMACT, Byadgi.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal,

are as follows:

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175

HC-KAR

3. On 30.08.2010, at about 10.30 a.m. one

Bharamappa was a pedestrian on the left side of the P.B.

Road. At that time, the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-27/5949,

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed

to Bharamappa. As a result, the Bharamappa sustained

fatal injuries all over the body and died on the spot. Hence,

the petitioners, are the legal representatives of the

deceased Bharamappa, filed a claim petition under Section

166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation for the death of

Bharamappa in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to

allow the claim petition.

4. A notice was issued to the owner of the offending

vehicle. Despite the service of a notice, he remained

unrepresented and was placed exparte.

5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of

objections denying the averments made in the claim

petition. It is contended that the driver of the offending

vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175

HC-KAR

as of the date of the accident. It is contended that the

owner of the offending vehicle has entrusted the offending

vehicle to an unauthorized person, who did not possess a

valid and effective driving License. Thus, there is a breach

of the policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim

petition against the Insurance Company.

6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the

parties, framed the relevant issues.

7. The petitioners, to substantiate their case,

petitioner No.2 was examined as P.W.1, and marked 5

documents as Exs.P1 to P5. Conversely, the official of the

Insurance company was examined as R.W.1, and marked 1

document as Ex.R1.

8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and

documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part

with costs vide judgment dated 10.06.2014, and awarded a

compensation of Rs.9,44,000/- with interest at the rate of

6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175

HC-KAR

realization. It is held that the owner and insurance company

are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation

amount, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the

compensation amount to the petitioners.

9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the

judgment and award passed in MVC No.91/2011, filed this

Miscellaneous First Appeal.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the

petitioners.

11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company

submits that the driver of the offending vehicle did not

possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date

of the accident. He submits that the owner of the offending

vehicle had entrusted the offending vehicle to an

unauthorized person. Thus, there is a breach of the policy

conditions. The said aspect was not adequately considered

by the Tribunal, and committed an error in fastening the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175

HC-KAR

liability jointly and severally. Hence, on these grounds, he

prays to allow the appeal.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that if this court comes to a conclusion

that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a

valid and effective driving licence, and there is a breach of

policy conditions, this court may direct the Insurance

Company to pay the compensation amount to the

petitioners at the first instance and recover the same from

the owner of the offending vehicle. To buttress his

arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Full

Bench of this court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE

COMPANY LTD BIJAPUR, BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER VS.

YALLAVVA AND ANOTHER reported in 2020 (2) AKR 484.

13. Perused the records and considered the

submission of the learned counsel for the parties.

14. The point that would arise for my consideration is

regarding the liability.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175

HC-KAR

Regarding Liability:

15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of

the accident and the death of the deceased Bharamappa in

an accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle, the petitioners have produced a charge sheet

marked as Ex.P1, which is filed against the driver of the

offending vehicle. The Tribunal was justified in recording a

finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/

Lorry. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the

Tribunal on issue No.1.

16. The Insurance Company has taken a specific

defense in the statement of objections that the driver of the

offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective

driving license as of the date of the accident. The driver and

owner of the offending vehicle are arrayed as parties to the

claim petition. However, the owner remained

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175

HC-KAR

unrepresented. The driver of the offending vehicle did not

enter the witness box to establish that as of the date of the

accident, he possessed a valid and effective driving license.

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company was

justified in submitting that the driver of the offending

vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license

as of the date of the accident. Thus, there is a breach of the

policy conditions. The Tribunal has not properly considered

this aspect, and committed an error in fastening the liability

jointly and severally on the owner and the Insurance

Company of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the claim

petition filed by the petitioners against the Insurance

Company is liable to be dismissed.

17. As of the date of the accident, the offending

vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. As per

the proposition of law laid down by Full Bench of this court

in the case of YALLAVVA (SUPRA), it is the duty of the

Insurance Company to satisfy the judgment and award

against the person insured regarding third-party risks.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175

HC-KAR

Therefore, the Insurance Company shall pay the

compensation amount with accrued interest in the first

instance and recover the same from the owner of the

offending vehicle. The Tribunal did not consider the said

aspect, and committed an error in fastening the liability

jointly and severally. Thus, the Insurance Company has

made out a ground to set aside the judgment and the award

passed by the Tribunal against the Insurance Company. In

view of the same the point regarding liability is answered

accordingly.

18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

i) The Appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The judgment and award dated 10.06.2014

passed in MVC No.91/2011 by the learned Senior

Civil Judge & IT court & AMACT, Byadgi is partly

set aside.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12175

HC-KAR

iii) The claim petition against the Insurance

Company is dismissed.

iv) However, the Insurance Company is directed to

deposit the compensation amount with accrued

interest within eight weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment, and recover

the same from the owner of the offending

vehicle, in accordance with law.

v) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit,