Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager vs Revakka W/O Maheshappa ... on 26 September, 2025

                                                    -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480
                                                             MFA No. 21165 of 2013


                       HC-KAR



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                                DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                                  BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
                           MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21165 OF 2013 (MV-D)
                      BETWEEN:
                      1.    THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
                            UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO, LTD
                            ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI
                                                                         ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADV)
                      AND:
                      1.    SMT. REVAKKA W/O MAHESHAPPA
                            KARENAGAPPANAVAR@
                            KARIYANNANAVAR,
                            AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
                            R/O : HULIKATTI VILLAGE,
                            TAL : RANEBENNUR.

                      2.    SMT. KRISHNAVENI W/O P. SRIDHAR
                            RAMCHANDRA, OWNER OF PREMIER
                            PADMINI CAR NO. MH02/TI82, R/O NO.4,
                            GANDHI STREET, PONDICHERRY.

                      3.    SMT. KARIYAVVA NAGAPPA
MOHANKUMAR                  KARENAGAPPANAVAR @
B SHELAR
                            KARIYANNANAVAR,
                            AGE 81 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B                R/O: SARVANDA VILLAGE,
SHELAR                      NOW AT KERIMALLAPUR,
Date: 2025.09.27
11:23:33 +0530              POST HONNATTI, TAL : RANEBENNUR.

                      4.    THE GENERAL MANAGER
                            M/S. PREMIER CAR SALES LTD,
                            SAKKA SATH CHOWK, OPP ROOM
                            NO.5LBS MARGHAKURLA (WEST)
                            MUMBAI.
                                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADV FOR R1,
                       R3 IS SERVED, R2 & R4 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)
                                 -2-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480
                                        MFA No. 21165 of 2013


HC-KAR



     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:21-12-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.566/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER,     ADDL.   MACT,    RANEBENNUR,      AWARDING   THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.4,10,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

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



                       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 21.12.2012 passed in MVC No.566/2009

by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional

MACT, Ranebennur.

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

are as follows:

3. On 28.12.1994, at about 7.30 p.m., the

deceased Maheshappa, and his friend were talking to each

other on P.B.Road near Makanur Cross. At that time, the car

bearing Reg.No.MH-02/T-182 came from Ranebennur side

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480

HC-KAR

in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the

deceased Maheshappa. Due to the said impact, the

deceased Maheshappa sustained grievous injuries, and

succumbed to the injuries during the treatment. Hence, the

legal representative of the deceased filed a claim petition

under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming a compensation

for the death of the deceased Maheshappa 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 absent,

and was placed ex-parte.

5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of

objections denying the averments made in the claim

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

the offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurance

Company, and the Insurance Company has not issued the

policy regarding the offending vehicle. The driver did not

possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480

HC-KAR

of the accident. It is contended that there is no privity of

contract between the Insurance Company and the owner of

the offending vehicle. 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 petitioner, to substantiate her case,

examined herself as P.W.1, examined one witness as P.W.2,

and marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. Conversely, on

the other hand, an official of the Insurance Company was

examined as R.W.1, and marked 10 documents as Exs.R1

to R10.

8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and

documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part

vide judgment dated 21.12.2012 and awarded a

compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- with interest at the rate of

6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization, held

that the owner and the Insurance Company are jointly and

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480

HC-KAR

severally liable to pay the compensation amount, and

directed the Insurance Company to deposit the

compensation amount.

9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the

judgment and award passed in MVC No.556/2009, filed this

Miscellaneous First Appeal.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company

submits that there is no privity of contract between the

Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle.

He submits that the Insurance Company has not issued any

policy regarding the offending vehicle. The Tribunal without

considering the said aspect has committed an error in

fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. He also

submits that the burden is on the petitioner to prove that

the offending vehicle is insured with the Insurance

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480

HC-KAR

Company. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on

the judgment of this court in the case of ORIENTAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VS CHIKKEGOWDA AND OTHERS

reported in ILR 1997 KAR 1980. Hence, on these grounds,

she prays to allow the appeal.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner

supports the impugned judgment and award, and

accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal.

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.

15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of

the accident, and the death of the deceased Maheshappa in

a road traffic accident. To prove that the accident occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle, the petitioner has produced a charge

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480

HC-KAR

sheet marked as Ex. P4. The Tribunal considering Ex.P4 has

rightly recorded its finding that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle.

Regarding Liability:

16. The petitioner contended that the offending

vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. To prove

the same, the petitioner has not furnished the particulars of

the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company has filed a

statement of objections contending that the offending

vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company. This

court in the case of CHIKKEGOWDA (SUPRA) held that,

"under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 as well as 1988 the

registering authority or the Police Officer is required to

furnish the particulars of the vehicle involved in the

accident, and as such, it is not as if the insurance

particulars cannot be secured at all. When once the

Insurance Company disputes its liability to indemnify the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480

HC-KAR

liability of the owner of the vehicle on the ground that the

insurance particulars are not given, it is for the petitioners

or the owner of the vehicle to place material on record to

indicate that the vehicle was insured on the relevant date.

It is not for the Insurance Company to prove that the

vehicle is not insured with them, and that it is either for the

petitioners or the owner of the vehicle to prove that the

vehicle was actually insured with the Insurance Company

when the fact of insurance was disputed".

17. In the instant case, neither the petitioner nor the

owner of the offending vehicle furnished the particulars of

the insurance of the offending vehicle. In the absence of the

insurance particulars of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal

has committed an error in fastening the liability on the

Insurance Company. Admittedly, there is no privity of

contract between the Insurance Company, and the owner of

the offending vehicle to indemnify the third party. The said

aspect was not adequately considered by the Tribunal, and

committed an error in fastening the liability on the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13480

HC-KAR

Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is not liable to

pay the compensation amount, as claimed by the

petitioners. The impugned judgment and award passed by

the Tribunal fastening liability on the Insurance Company is

perverse, arbitrary and erroneous. In view of the above

discussion, the point for consideration is answered

accordingly,

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

pass the following:

ORDER

i) The Appeal is allowed.

ii) The judgment and award dated 21.12.2012 passed in MVC No.566/2009 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Ranebennur, is partly set aside as against the Insurance Company.