United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Manjula — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Manjula — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Miscellaneous First Appeals allowed: the Tribunal's judgment and award dated 19.04.2013 in MVC No.564 of 2009 and 484 of 2010 partly set aside and the claim petitions against the insurance company dismissed; owner of the offending vehicle directed to deposit the awarded compensation with accrued interest within 8 weeks; amount deposited by the insurance company to be refunded to it; TCRs to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

Issue for consideration

Liability — whether the appellant insurance company is liable to pay the awarded compensation, i.e., whether the offending motorcycle (KA-15/H-6821) was insured with it on the date of the accident.

Court's answer

Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the duty to furnish particulars showing that the offending vehicle was insured on the relevant date rests on the petitioner or the owner of the vehicle; it is not for the insurance company to prove that the vehicle was not insured with it.

Ratio / Principle

Despite participating in the Tribunal proceedings, neither the claimants nor the owner produced the policy of insurance or established that it was valid as of the date of the accident.

Key takeaways

From the charge sheet (Exhibit P-8) filed against both drivers — abated against the deceased — this Court observed that both contributed to the cause of the accident.obiter¶18
Concluded view: as of the date of the accident there was no insurance policy and the offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant insurance company.ratio¶24
RW-1 (insurer's officer) deposed and Exhibit R-2 disclosed that the premium was not paid and no policy records were found; the Tribunal, without considering Exhibit R-2, presumed the vehicle was insured and committed an error in fastening liability on the insurance company.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149 — liability of insurer where no policy is proved. The insurer pleaded, and proved through its officer (RW-1) and Exhibit R-2, that the premium on motorcycle KA-15/H-6821 was unpaid and no policy records existed; neither the claimants (legal representatives of deceased Prakash — MVC No.564/2009), the injured petitioner (MVC No.484/2010), nor the owner produced any policy despite participating in the proceedings. Held: under Section 149 the duty to furnish particulars showing insurance on the relevant date rests on the petitioner/owner, not on the insurer to disprove coverage; the offending vehicle was therefore uninsured on 23.03.2009 and the Tribunal erred in presuming coverage and fastening 50% liability on the insurer. Appeals allowed; Tribunal award dated 19.04.2013 partly set aside; claim petitions against the insurer dismissed; owner to deposit ₹2,83,400/- (death claim) and ₹1,16,000/- (injury claim) with accrued interest within 8 weeks; insurer's deposit to be refunded. Observation: charge sheet Exhibit P-8 (abated qua the deceased) showed both drivers contributed to the accident.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12705 MFA No. 101013 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101014 of 2015

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101013 OF 2015 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101014 OF 2015

IN MFA NO.101013/2015

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE P.B. NO.21, GOVINDA KRUPA TRUST BUILDING, II FLOOR, J.C. ROAD, SAGAR, DIST: SHIMOGA, REP THROUGH UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, REP BY ITS, DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

…APPELLANT

(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV)

AND:

SMT. MANJULA W/O PRAKASH BALLARY, AGED: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KRISHNA S/O PRAKASH BALLARY AGED 20 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT

RAMU S/O PRAKASH BALLARY AGED 18 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT

PARVATEWWA W/O BASAPPA BALLARY AGED 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE

ALL ARE R/O KAJJARI VILLAGE TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI

G. RANGANATH S/O GANESHAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS FATHER LRS., GANESHAPPA S/O BHARAMAPPA AGE:72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12705 MFA No. 101013 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101014 of 2015

HC-KAR

R/O. ESSUR, TQ. SHIKARIPURA DIST. SHIMOGA (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-15/H-6821) OCC. STUDENT

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M.H. PATIL, ADV FOR R2 TO R4, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.564/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,83,400/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION ALONG WITH ACCRUED INTEREST THERE ON WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER IN BOTH CASES.

IN MFA NO.101014/2015

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE P.B. NO.21, GOVINDA KRUPA TRUST BUILDING, II FLOOR, J.C. ROAD, SAGAR, DIST: SHIMOGA, REPRESENTED THROUGH, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, REP BY ITS, DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

…APPELLANT

(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV)

AND:

SRI. HALESH @ HALAPPA S/O. MARDEPPA BELLARI AGED: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BANNIHATTI, BYADAGI, NOW AT KAJJARI, DIST: HAVERI.

G. RANGANATH S/O. GANESHAPPA

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12705 MFA No. 101013 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101014 of 2015

HC-KAR

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS FATHER LRS GANESHAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. ESSUR, TQ: SHIKARIPURA DIST: SHIMOGA (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-15/H-6821) OCC. STUDENT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M.H. PATIL, ADV FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.484/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,16,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

These Appeals are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the common judgment and award dated 19.04.2013 passed in MVC No.564 of 2009 and 484 of 2010.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12705 MFA No. 101013 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101014 of 2015

HC-KAR

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows:

One Prakash i.e., the deceased and the petitioner in MVC No.484 of 2010 met with an accident on 23.03.2009, when they were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/L-9622, which collided with the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-15/H-6821. Prakash sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on spot. The legal representatives of the deceased Prakash filed a claim petition in MVC No.564 of 2009 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident, and the petitioner, who sustained grievous injuries, filed a claim petition in MVC No.484 of 2010. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

A notice was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle. He appeared and filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12705 MFA No. 101013 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101014 of 2015

HC-KAR

petition and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Accordingly prays to dismiss the claim petition against him.

The insurance company filed a statement of objections and contended that there is no charge-sheet on the insured vehicle, the insured, and making the insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-15/H-6821 amounts to misjoinder of necessary parties. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions.

The Tribunal, clubbed both the claim petitions and framed the common issues.

Petitioner No.1 in MVC No.564 of 2009 was examined as PW-1, and the petitioner in MVC No.484 of 2010 was examined as PW-2, they examined the doctor as PW-3 and marked 15 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-15.

In rebuttal, the respondents, i.e, the owner and the insurance company, examined three witnesses as RW-1

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12705 MFA No. 101013 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101014 of 2015

HC-KAR

to RW-3, and marked six documents as Exhibits R-1 to

R-6.

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part vide judgment dated 19.04.2013 and awarded a compensation of ₹2,83,400/- in MVC No.564 of 2009 and ₹1,16,000/- in MVC No.484 of 2010 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation.

It is held that the owner and insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount at the rate of 50% and respondent No.2, i.e., the insurance company, was directed to deposit 50% amount along with the accrued interest.

The insurance company, aggrieved by the impugned judgment, filed these appeals.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12705 MFA No. 101013 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101014 of 2015

HC-KAR

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company, and the learned counsel for the petitioners.

The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that as of the date of the accident, the vehicle was not insured with the insurance company, and to establish the case of the insurance company, the insurance company has produced Exhibit R-2 which discloses that, on verification, the insurance company through its policy has not covered the above vehicle and has not issued any policy. The Tribunal did not consider Exhibit R-2 and committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeals.

Per contra , the learned counsel for the petitioners supported the impugned judgment and award and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeals.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12705 MFA No. 101013 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101014 of 2015

HC-KAR

A notice was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle. Despite the service of notice, the owner remained unrepresented before this court in both the appeals.

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

The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability.

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, the death of one Prakash and the petitioner in MVC No.484 of 2010 sustaining grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of the offending vehicles, the petitioners have produced a charge sheet marked as Exhibit P-8. The abated charge sheet is filed against the deceased. Both of them have contributed for the cause of accident.

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12705 MFA No. 101013 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101014 of 2015

HC-KAR

Reg. Liability :

The insurance company has taken a specific defense in the statement of objections, contending that the said vehicle was not insured with the insurance company as of the date of the accident.

To prove that the said vehicle was not insured with the insurance company, the officer of the insurance company was examined as RW-1 who has deposed that as of the date of accident, the vehicle was not insured with the insurance company and he has also produced Exhibit R-2, which discloses that, on verification of the proposal form, that the premium was not paid and the vehicle was not insured and no such records are found in the office.

The Tribunal, without considering Exhibit R-2, has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment, presuming as if the said vehicle was insured with the insurance company.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12705 MFA No. 101013 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101014 of 2015

HC-KAR

Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is the duty of the petitioner or the owner of the vehicle to furnish all such particulars to show that the offending vehicle was insured on the relevant date. It is not for the insurance company to prove that the vehicle was not insured with them.

Admittedly, in the instant case, neither the petitioners nor the owner of the offending vehicle, despite participating in the proceedings before the Tribunal, has not produced the policy of insurance to establish that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company i.e, the appellant herein and the policy was valid as of the date of the accident.

Hence, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurance company, there was no insurance policy as of the date of accident. This Court is of the considered view that as of the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was not insured with the insurance

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12705 MFA No. 101013 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101014 of 2015

HC-KAR

company and the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company. In view of the same, the point regarding liability is answered accordingly.

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

ORDER

(I) The Miscellaneous First Appeals are allowed .

(II) The judgment and award passed by the

Tribunal in MVC No.564 of 2009 and 484 of 2010 dated 19.04.2013 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Ranebennur, is

partly set aside and the claim petitions against the insurance company are dismissed.

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12705 MFA No. 101013 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101014 of 2015

HC-KAR

(III) The owner of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest, awarded by the Tribunal within 8 weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(IV) The amount deposited by the insurance company is directed to be refunded in favour of the insurance company.

(V) The office is directed to transmit the TCRs to the Tribunal, forthwith.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

RKK/ kmv CT: BSB

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common judgment and award dated 19.04.2013 in MVC No.564 of 2009 and MVC No.484 of 2010: claim petitions allowed in part; compensation of Rs.2,83,400/- (MVC 564/2009) and Rs.1,16,000/- (MVC 484/2010) awarded with interest at 6% p.a.; owner and insurance company held jointly and severally liable, insurer directed to deposit 50%.¶1
Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl. MACT, Ranebennur · 19.04.2013
Prior proceeding
Road traffic accident on 23.03.2009: motorcycle KA-27/L-9622 carrying Prakash (deceased) and the petitioner in MVC No.484 of 2010 collided with motorcycle KA-15/H-6821; Prakash sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.¶3
Prior proceeding
Legal representatives of deceased Prakash filed claim petition MVC No.564 of 2009 for death compensation; the injured petitioner filed claim petition MVC No.484 of 2010.¶3
Prior proceeding
Owner of the offending vehicle appeared and filed statement of objections denying the claim averments, contending the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.¶4
Prior proceeding
Insurance company filed statement of objections pleading misjoinder, asserting there was no charge-sheet on the insured vehicle/insured.¶5
Prior proceeding
Tribunal clubbed both claim petitions and framed common issues.¶6
Prior proceeding
Trial evidence for claimants: petitioner No.1 (MVC 564/2009) as PW-1, petitioner (MVC 484/2010) as PW-2, doctor as PW-3; documents Exhibits P-1 to P-15.¶7
Prior proceeding
Rebuttal evidence: owner and insurance company examined three witnesses RW-1 to RW-3 and marked six documents Exhibits R-1 to R-6.¶8
Prior proceeding
Tribunal allowed both claim petitions in part vide judgment dated 19.04.2013, awarding compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition till realisation.¶9
Prior proceeding
Tribunal held owner and insurance company jointly and severally liable at 50%; respondent No.2 (insurance company) directed to deposit 50% with accrued interest.¶10