[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Manager Legal Bajaj Allianz General ... vs Pritam Appu @ Sangamesh Lamani @ Rathod ... on 11 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1343
MFA No. 201082 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.201082 OF 2024 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER LEGAL,
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, VIJAY HOUSING COLONY,
LINGAD GUDI ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA,
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY ITS,
THE MANAGER,
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, "KALABURAGI-NOOLVI MAJESTIC",
Digitally signed NEW COTTON MARKET,
by KHAJAAMEEN HUBLI-580 029,
MALAGHAN
R/P BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRITAM APPU @ SANGAMESH LAMANI @ RATHOD
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR,
R/BY HIS MOTHER,
NILAMMA W/O SANGAMESH LAMANI @ RATHOD,
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1343
MFA No. 201082 of 2024
HC-KAR
R/O AMBALNUR TANDA,
TQ. BASAVANA-BAGEWADI,
NOW AT C/O BEENA VIJAYAKUMAR PAWAR,
H.NO.EWS-232, JALANAGAR,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
2. VITHAL GURAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O AMBALNUR L.T.,
TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
(OWNER OF CAR NO. KA-28/C-6779)
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 & R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO, A) SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.10.2023 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.268/2020 BY THE MACT NO.VII AT VIJAYAPURA. B)
PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS/ RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the insurance company
assailing the judgment and award dated 20.10.2023 in
MVC.No.268/2020 on the file of the Member Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-VII, Vijaypura, awarding
compensation on the ground of liability.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1343
HC-KAR
02. The relevant facts for adjudication of this
appeal are that on 20.11.2019 at about 07.00 p.m., the
claimant had met with an accident with the offending Car
bearing No.KA-28-C-6779 being driven by the driver of the
vehicle in question. Hence, the claimant has preferred
MVC.No.268/2020 seeking compensation.
03. The Tribunal after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and award dated 20.10.2023
awarded compensation of Rs.1,23,000/- with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till
realization.
04. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award
made by the Tribunal on liability, the insurance company
has preferred this appeal.
05. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant. Respondents served remained absent.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1343
HC-KAR
06. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant that, as on the date of the accident there
was no policy in force, and therefore, the said aspect of
the matter was not properly considered by the Tribunal
and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
07. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute as to the occurrence of the accident on 20.11.2019
at 07.00 p.m. The insurance policy has been marked as
Ex.R2, wherein it is stated that the said policy will come
into effect from 20.11.2019 at 23.45 hours to 19.11.2020
midnight. Since, the alleged accident was occurred at
07.00 p.m. prior to the effective force of the policy in
question and also the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Samilulla and another vs. Mehatabulla @
Mehatab and another, in MFA.Crob.No.100086/2019
(MV) connected with MFA.No.101312/2019, disposed of on
22.02.2023, at paragraph 36 held as follows:
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1343
HC-KAR
"36. In this case, as per Ex.R4, proposal period
of risk commences from 22.05.2015. Accident
had taken place on 21.05.2015 at 09.15 p.m. At
that time, policy of insurance was not in force.
Hence, Respondent No.2 - Insurer cannot be
directed to indemnify the Respondent - Owner of
vehicle or direct the Respondent No.2 to pay the
compensation amount to claimants and recover
from the owner. Hence, said contention of
appellant and claimant is not tenable. The finding
of Tribunal in this regard cannot be interfered."
08. Following the declaration of law made by the
Division Bench of this Court, I am of the view that, the
finding recorded by the Tribunal, directing the insurance
company to indemnify the respondent No.1 is erroneous
and same is thereby set-aside.
09. Accordingly, the insurance company is
exonerated from making payment as to the compensation
and the respondent-owner of the vehicle in question is
solely able to pay the compensation to the claimant.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1343
HC-KAR
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
11. The amount in deposit be refunded to the
appellant with due identification.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
KJJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
CT:PK
