Shri.Ramachandra S/O Giriyappa Aralikatti, Vs Shri.Shrinivas Veeranna Komar

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11453 MFA No. 103504 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100581 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103504 OF 2017 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100581 OF 2017

¶6

IN MFA NO. 103504 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRINIVAS S/O VEERANNA KOMAR AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, NOW R/O: AT POST DEVANAL, VILLAGE CHIKKA SAUSI TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADV)

¶11

AND:

¶12

RAMACHANDRA S/O GIRIYAPPA ARALIKATTI AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: CHIPPALKATTI, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶13

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶14

THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER, VISHARANTI MELARAM TOWERS, NO.2/319 RAJIV GANDI SALAI (OMR) KARAPAKKAM, CHENNAI-600097, STATE TAMIL NADU.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.15 17:48:55 +0530

¶17

(BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADV FOR R1, SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.612/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,85,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11453 MFA No. 103504 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100581 of 2017

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

IN MFA NO.100581 OF 2017

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SHRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O GIRIYAPPA ARALIKATTI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE, R/O: CHIPPALKATTI, TAL: RAMDURGA, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶25

…APPELLANT

¶26

(BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADV)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SHRI. SHRINIVAS VEERANNA KOMAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.18, BEHIND ISHWAR TEMPLE, SHAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590020.

¶29

THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, “VISHARANTI MELARAM TOWERS” NO.2/319, RAJIV GANDI SALAI TOWERS” (OMR) KARAPAKKAM, CHENNAI-600097.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2 R1 SERVED)

¶32

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.612/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION & SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF THE COMPENSATION.

¶33

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

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

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11453 MFA No. 103504 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100581 of 2017

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

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

¶40

These appeals are filed by the owner and the petitioner challenging the judgment and award dated 15.06.2016 passed in MVC No.612/2015 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, and Additional MACT, Belagavi.

¶41

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these

¶42

appeals are as follows:

¶43

On 24.01.2015, the driver of the offending tipper bearing registration No.KA.22.B.6347 owned by one Shrinivas Veeranna Komar and insured with the insurance company, came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle bearing registration number KA.48.H.2920 ridden by the petitioner, thereby, causing him grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking the compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11453 MFA No. 103504 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100581 of 2017

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The Tribunal issued a notice to the owner of the offending vehicle. Despite the service of a notice, the owner remained unrepresented, and was placed exparte.

¶47

The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident and there is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company.

¶48

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶49

The petitioner to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 10 documents as EX.P-1 to P-10. Conversely, an official of the insurance company was examined as RW-1 and marked 7 documents as EX.R-1 to EX.R-7.

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11453 MFA No. 103504 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100581 of 2017

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 15.06.2016, awarding a compensation of ₹ 2,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation and dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company. The owner of offending vehicle was directed to deposit the compensation amount.

¶53

The owner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition against the insurance company filed an appeal in MFA No.103504 of 2017 and the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, filed an appeal in MFA No.100581 of 2017 seeking for an enhancement of compensation.

¶54

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle and the learned counsel for the insurance company.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11453 MFA No. 103504 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100581 of 2017

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

He also submits that, as of the date of the accident, the vehicle was insured with the insurance company. He submits that the Tribunal was of the opinion that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed against the insurance company. He submits that as of the date of the accident, the policy was in force and the Tribunal should have directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal committed an error in not directing the insurance company to pay and recover. Hence on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner, and dismiss the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶59

Per contra, the learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle submits that no notice was served on the owner. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He also submits that as of the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company. The Tribunal should have directed the

¶60

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11453 MFA No. 103504 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100581 of 2017

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

insurance company to deposit the compensation amount at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the appeal filed by the owner, and dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶63

Learned counsel for the insurance company submit that admittedly, as of the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and there was no permit. There is a breach of policy conditions and thus, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against the insurance company.

¶64

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶65

The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation and the liability .

¶66

It is not in dispute that the petitioner met with an accident, and sustained the injuries in the road traffic accident. The petitioner to substantiate that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11453 MFA No. 103504 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100581 of 2017

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

the offending vehicle, produced a certified copy of the charge sheet marked as Exhibit P6. The Tribunal considering Exhibit P6 has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶70

Regarding liability : The insurance company has taken a specific defence in the statement of objections contending that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident and there was no permit. The officer of the insurance company was examined as RW1 and he has produced documents Exhibits R1 to R7. Exhibit R6 is the letter of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kadapa wherein he has issued an endorsement stating that particulars of driving licence of Sri. Lakshman Vittal Narsapur are verified in the office system and no particulars are found. It seems to be a fake one. The Tribunal considering Exhibit R6, has rightly recorded a finding that the driver of the offending did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Further, a permit was not issued by the RTO.

¶71

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11453 MFA No. 103504 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100581 of 2017

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

Hence, there is a violation of the policy conditions. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the full bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd Bijapur, by its Divisional Manager v. Yallavva and another reported in ILR 2020 KAR 2239 wherein it is held that, the insurer is liable to pay the third party and recover from the insured even if there is breach of any conditions recognised under Section 149(2) of the Act, even if it is a fundamental breach(that is breach of condition which is the cause for the accident) and the insurer proves that the said breach, in view of the mandate under Section 149(1) of the MV Act. But no such order can be passed against the insurer, if, on the facts and circumstances of a case, a finding is given by the Court that the third party (injured or deceased) had played any fraud or was in collusion with the insured, individually or collectively, for a wrongful gain to themselves or cause wrongful loss to the insurer.

¶74

Admittedly, the petitioner is a third party and further, the insurance company has not pleaded in the statement of objections that the petitioner and the owner of

¶75

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11453 MFA No. 103504 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100581 of 2017

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

the offending vehicle are, having colluded with each other filed a claim petitioner, and further, there is no reference in the statement of objections regarding the fraud etc. Thus, the petitioner being a third party, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶78

17. Regarding the quantum of compensation: The

¶79

petitioner has contended that he used to work in a cement factory and used to draw a salary of ₹ 13,000/- per month. Even after the accident, the petitioner continued to work in the factory, and there is no loss of future income. The Tribunal considering, the evidence on record has rightly awarded the compensation of ₹3,00,000/-. I do not find any error in tribunal awarding the compensation of ₹3,00,000/- to the petitioner.

¶80

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

The appeals are dismissed.

¶83

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11453 MFA No. 103504 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100581 of 2017

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

The judgment and award dated 15.06.2016 passed in MVC No.612/2015 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi, is hereby confirmed.

¶86

The Rest of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is maintained intact.

¶87

The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount at the first instance, and recover the

¶88

same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶89

The amount in deposit, if any, and the TCR be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.

¶90

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶91

kmv CT: BSB

Shri.Ramachandra S/O Giriyappa Aralikatti, v. Shri.Shrinivas Veeranna Komar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Ramachandra S/O Giriyappa Aralikatti, v. Shri.Shrinivas Veeranna Komar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Kallinatheshwar Stone Crushing Vs the Joint Registrar of

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shri. Rama @ Ramachandra S/O Nagesh Hurude

M/S Hdfc Ergo General Vs Erappa @ Veerappa

Shri Girish S/O Irappa Pattanshetti Vs Shri Vishwanath S/O Shivappa Pattanshetti

Prithvisingh Narayansingh Raput Vs Sunita D/O Tesingh Raput

The Manager, Vs Mallikarjuna S/O K Lakshman