[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager vs Venkamma W/O Mohan Naik on 26 March, 2026

Author: Ravi V.Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani

                                                       -1-
                                                                   NC: 2026:KHC-D:4736
                                                              MFA No. 100632 of 2015


                            HC-KAR




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                                     DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                                     BEFORE
                                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
                            MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100632 OF 2015 (MV-D)
                            BETWEEN:
                            THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
                            NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
                            DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
                            OPP. KITTLE COLLEGE, DHARWAD.
                            NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
                            SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
                                                                           ...APPELLANT
                            (BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)

                            AND:
                            1.   SMT.VENKAMMA W/O MOHAN NAIK,
                                 AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: GOVT., SERVICE,
                                 R/O: NEAR CHOUDESHWARI TEMPLE,
                                 PALLIKERI, BABRUWADA, ANKOLA.

                            2.   POOJA D/O MOHAN NAIK,
                                 AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
                                 R/O: NEAR CHOUDESHWARI TEMPLE,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
                                 PALLIKERI, BABRUWADA, ANKOLA.
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.28 05:15:24
+0000


                            3.   SMT.GULABI W/O SHIVA NAIK,
                                 AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
                                 R/O: NEAR CHOUDESHWARI TEMPLE,
                                 PALLIKERI, BABRUWADA, ANKOLA.

                            4.   PUNDALIK RAMCHANDRA LOKHANDE,
                                 REGD. OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING
                                 REG. NO.KA-25/C-8585,
                                 R/O: TULSA NILAYA, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI.
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC-D:4736
                                      MFA No. 100632 of 2015


HC-KAR




5.     LENKANGOUDA BALAPPA ARKERI,
       REGD. OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING
       REG. NO.KA-29/6379,
       R/O: GADDDINKERI CROSS,
       TAL. & DIST. BAGALKOT.

6.     THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
       ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
       SUNDARAM TOWERS 45 AND 46 ROAD,
       CHENNAI-600 014.

7.     THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
       UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR.

8.     THE KARNATAKA GOVT. INSURANCE DEPARTMENT,
       VISHWESHWARAIH TOWER,
       KGID-BRANCH, BANGALORE-560 001.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANKIT DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR
    SMT.GAYATRI SR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
    SRI GN RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 (VC);
    SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R7 & R8;
    NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
    NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED)

        THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 09.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.97/2010 ON THE
FILE    OF   THE   2ND   ADDITIONAL   MOTOR    ACCIDENT   CLAIM
TRIBUNAL      KARWAR,     AWARDING    THE   COMPENSATION      OF
RS.11,28,744/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION & ETC.


        THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                   -3-
                                                 NC: 2026:KHC-D:4736
                                           MFA No. 100632 of 2015


 HC-KAR




CORAM:       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

                         ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 09.12.2014

passed by II Additional M.A.C.T., Karwar (for short, 'Tribunal')

in MVC no.97/2010, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned counsel for

appellant submitted that appeal was by insurer challenging

award on liability. It was submitted that on 04.04.2010 one

Mohan Shiva Naik was driving Police van no.KA-30/G-282 on

Kalagatagi-Yellapur road. Its driver noticed a static Lorry no.KA-

29/6379 near Hittinbail and slowed down Police Van. But driver of

Lorry KA-25/C-8585 overtook Police Van and on noticing parked

Lorry swerved it to left side and dashed against front portion of

Police Van and caused accident. In accident, Mohan Siva Naik

sustained grievous injuries and initially taken to Government

Hospital, Yellapur and thereafter to Mahalaxmi Hospital, Sirsi, but

died while being taken to K.L.E. Hospital, Belagavi for higher

treatment. Alleging loss of dependency, his wife, minor daughter

and mother filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (for short, 'MV Act') against owners and insurers of both

lorries as well as Police Van.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4736

HC-KAR

3. On appearance, respondents contested claim petition

on all grounds. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and

recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 along with another deposed as

PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. Respondents

examined 4 witnesses as RW.1 to RW.4 and got marked Exs.R1 to

R20.

4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred due

to contributory negligence of drivers of all three vehicles,

apportioned at 30% against Van Driver, 20% against driver of

parked lorry and 50% against driver of offending lorry. It also held

claimants entitled for compensation of ₹11,28,744/- with interest at

6% per annum. Aggrieved by said award, insurer was in appeal.

5. It was submitted that Exs.P1 to P3, prosecution would

indicate that based on complaint, Police had conducted investigation

and charge sheeted driver of insured lorry for driving a 'Heavy

Goods Vehicle' without valid and effective driving licence as on date

of accident. It was submitted, insurer had also examined

jurisdictional R.T.O. as RW.4, who produced driving license extract

as per Ex.R6, which revealed that Heavy Goods Vehicle driving

license of deceased was issued on 03.04.2002 and was in force till

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4736

HC-KAR

02.04.2005. It was submitted though license was renewed on

10.05.2010 till 09.05.2013, driver of lorry did not have driving

licence to drive any vehicle as on date of accident that is on

04.04.2010. Therefore, submitted that Tribunal held in holding

insurer liable to pay compensation.

6. On other hand, Sri Ankit Desai, learned counsel

appearing for Smt.SR Gayatri, advocate for respondents no.1 to

3/claimants opposed appeal. It was submitted, deceased was

driver of Police Van and as such would be a third party insofar as

claim against owner/insurer of offending lorry. Therefore, in view

of full bench decision of this Court in case of New India

Assurance Co. Ltd., Bijapur vs. Yallavva w/o. Yamanappa

Dharanakeri, reported in 2020 (2) AKR 484, even if, insurer

were to establish violation of terms and conditions of policy,

insurer would require to first pay compensation to claimant and

thereafter recover same from insured.

7. Sri GN Raichur, learned counsel for respondent no.6

and Sri Jayaram Siddi, learned HCGP for respondents no.7 and 8

opposed appeal.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4736

HC-KAR

8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,

award and record.

9. From above, since insurer is in appeal only on finding

about liability, point that would arise for consideration is:

"Whether finding of Tribunal on liability of appellant/insurer calls for modification?

10. At outset, contention of appellant/insurer on liability

is principally based on contention that driver of insured vehicle

did not have valid and effective driving license to drive a lorry

(Heavy Goods Vehicle) as on date of accident. To establish said

fact, insurer relies upon Ex.R6, driving license extract of driver of

insured vehicle and deposition of RW.4. Perusal of Ex.R6 reveals

that driver had driving license to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle from

03.04.2002 till 02.04.2005. Accident occurred on 04.04.2010.

Immediately, after accident, driver of insured lorry has got his

driving license renewed from 10.05.2010 to 09.05.2013. Same

would establish that as on date of accident driver did not have

valid and effective driving license to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle.

But full bench of this Court in Yallavva's case has held even in

case of breach of terms and conditions of policy, insurer would

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4736

HC-KAR

require to pay compensation to claimants in first instance and

thereafter recover same from insured without recourse to

separate proceedings. Thus, point for consideration is answered

partly in affirmative as above. Consequently, following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) Judgment and award dated 09.12.2014 passed in MVC no.97/2010 on file of II Additional MACT, Karwar is modified only to an extent of holding insurer would be liable to pay compensation to claimants in first instance and thereafter recover same from insured. In all other aspects, award remains confirmed.