MFA challenging compensation award for motor accident. Court held insurance company liable as learner license breach was not fundamental breach causing accident. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; amount in deposit transmitted to the Tribunal; records returned to trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:12916 MFA No. 1109 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1109 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, I FLOOR, VIDYAPOORNA COMPLEX, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. REP. BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AT REGIONAL OFFICE, #144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI SRISHAILA S, ADVOCATE [V/C])
AND:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:12916 MFA No. 1109 of 2019
UDUPI TALUK-576 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NARAYAN M NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.252/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,95,936/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi in MVC.No.252/2016 dated 06.10.2018, the Insurance company is before this Court questioning the liability.
that point of time, a motorcycle came from Udupi side towards Mangalore, the rider of the said bike rode the said vehicle in a high speed and a negligent manner and came
NC: 2024:KHC:12916 MFA No. 1109 of 2019
towards the eastern mud portion and hit the pedestrian. On account of the same, the pedestrian sustained injuries
and taken treatment by spending huge amount.
statement stating that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a driving license as on the date of the accident. As such, they are not liable to indemnify the owner and amount that has been spent for medical treatment, food, nourishment, conveyance and other incidental expenses has been denied by them. The Court below on issue No.1 has held that on perusal of the entire cross-examination except for a suggestion to PW.1 nothing worth is elicited as to discard their consistent evidence of PW.1. The accident that has resulted in injury is not denied by the respondent. The convincing evidence of PW.1 coupled with the prosecution papers clinchingly proves that its due to the negligence of the offending motorcycle, the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
NC: 2024:KHC:12916 MFA No. 1109 of 2019
an amount of Rs.1,95,936/-. When it comes to the liability, it is the case of the insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle is having a Learners License. When he is having the Learners License, he should exhibiting a 'L' board towards front and back portion and he should be accompanied by a competent license holder, at on that time, he was accompanied by a minor and as there is clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. They relied on judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS1 , UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. BHARAMAPPA DODDABIRAPPA PUJARI AND ANOTHER2 , UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SMT. RATHNA AND ANOTHER3 , K.P. ABDUL GAFOOR VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.4 , ORIENTAL
1 (2004) 2 SCC 297
2 2005 ACJ 1509
3 2017 ACJ 646
4 2018 ACJ 577
INSURANCE CO. LTD VS. BABY5 and submitted that they are not liable to pay the compensation. The Court below had negatived the said stand taken by the Insurance Company. Observing that the conditions of the policy is binding between the owner and the Insurance Company and the same cannot be applied to the facts of the case. Apart from that in the referred case liability was fixed on the owner to pay the compensation and claimed against the insurer was dismissed. Further, Court had observed that the owner and driver cannot evade the liability, pay and recover only be invoked by the victim. Therefore, the decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case and accordingly, held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
5 2015 3 TAC 686 KERALA
NC: 2024:KHC:12916 MFA No. 1109 of 2019
When it amounts to clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Court below ought to have applied the principles of pay and recover. Though the Court had discussed the judgments of the Apex Court in SWARAN SINGH 's case referred to supra, but failed to apply the principles of pay and recover. It is submitted that it is the owner who is liable to pay the compensation and the said finding of the Court below is contrary to the settled law.
was driving the vehicle in a slow, careful and cautious manner. The Court below had acquitted the accused and also observed that there is no material to show that the
accident had taken place because of the negligence on the
part of the rider and in fact the claimants were crossing the road where there was no zebra crossing. He submits that when he has not contributed for the accident and just because these violation of the rules with regard to the obligation of a person who is having a Learners License that itself cannot be a ground. He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in SWARAN SINGH 's case referred to supra and submits that when he has not contributed to the accident, the owner is not liable to pay the compensation and the Court below had rightly fixed the liability on the Insurance Company.
drive the motorcycle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in SWARAN SINGH 's case referred to supra had dealt the cases of Learners License and observed that when a vehicle is being driven by learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the license, he would not be a person who is not duly licensed, resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the party. It cannot be said that a person holding a Learners License is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding Learners License. The same would run contrary to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the Act. The Court had discussed several judgments of the Apex Court. The Court has also observed that mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of a driver
for driving at the relevant point of time are not in themselves defenses available to the insurer against either the insured or third party. To award its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy
NC: 2024:KHC:12916 MFA No. 1109 of 2019
regarding use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver or one who has disqualified to driver at the relevant point of time. Even when the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured, then the next thing that has to be proved is the said breach of condition which is so fundamental and has contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunal in interpreting the policy conditions would apply within "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow the defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act.
as stated by the Insurance Company is not fundamental breach.
opinion that the Court below had rightly held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed.
ii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.
SD/JUDGE
NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurer can avoid liability when the driver held a Learners License but did not exhibit the 'L' board or accompany a licensed person.
Whether breach of learner license conditions by the driver amounts to a fundamental breach depriving the insurer of liability under Section 149(2).
Whether the claimant's negligence in crossing a road without a zebra crossing breaks the causal connection with the driver's breach of conditions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERSApplied¶5
(2004) 2 SCC 297 · Who else cites this
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. BHARAMAPPA DODDABIRAPPA PUJARI AND ANOTHERReferred¶35
2005 ACJ 1509
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SMT. RATHNA AND ANOTHERReferred¶35
2017 ACJ 646
K.P. ABDUL GAFOOR VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.Referred¶35
2018 ACJ 577
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD VS. BABYReferred¶35
2015 3 TAC 686 KERALA
2 provisions across 2 enactments
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
RAJIVI
SAGAR D. KOTIYAN
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
