Dismissed¶42

The Divisional Manager v. Smt Radha

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2025MFA/503/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Division Bench, MFA No. 503 of 2020 (MV-D), decided 07-08-2025: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Radha and others. Keywords: expired driving licence on date of accident; insurer's denial of liability; pay-and-recover direction upheld; accident dated 15-6-2017 governed by pre-2022-amendment law under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; appeal under Section 173(1) MV Act; Tribunal award of Rs.16,35,000 with 6% interest; appeal dismissed, no error of law found; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant-insurer; the Tribunal's award in favour of the claimants stands. Amount in deposit, if any, ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith. ¶42

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Radha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30858-DB MFA No. 503 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.503 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. S.S. COMPLEX, UPPER SIDE OF HARSHA H ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

¶11

AND ALSO AT REGIONAL OFFICE SHUBHARAM COMPLEX II FLOOR, NO.144, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI K. SRIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

SMT. RADHA W/O. MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND COOLIE.

¶17

KUM. MANASA D/O. LATE MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS OCCUPATION: STUDENT.

¶18

KUM. KOUSTHUBHA D/O. LATE MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS OCCUPATION: STUDENT.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30858-DB MFA No. 503 of 2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

LANDIGIRI HUCHAPPA S/O. KERIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE.

¶22

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BARADAVALLI VILLAGE, TALAGUPPA HOBLI SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI BIMBADHAR M. GOWDAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1 TO R-3, & SRI PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE, FOR R-4)

¶25

¶26

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25-3-2019 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.985 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-10, SAGAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.16,35,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.

¶27

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶31

The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company impugning the judgment and award dated 25-3-2019 in M.V.C. No.985 of 2017 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class and Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-10, Sagar.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30858-DB MFA No. 503 of 2020

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The Insurance Company denied its liability before the Tribunal on the ground that the driving licence got expired on the date of the accident and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶35

The Tribunal, after considering the facts and evidence on record, has awarded compensation of Rs.16,35,000/- in favour of the claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay the said compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle.

¶36

The accident took place on 15-6-2017 i.e. before the amendment was brought under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the year 2022. The relevant law at that time was that even if there are issues with the insurance policy or vehicle owner's actions, the Insurance Company would be directed to pay the compensation, however, with liberty to recover it from the vehicle owner, or the insured party, under certain circumstances.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:30858-DB MFA No. 503 of 2020

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

We have perused the judgment. We do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error of law, which requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is

¶41

dismissed .

¶42

Amount in deposit, if any, be transferred to the Tribunal, forthwith.

¶43

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶44

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶45

KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

The Divisional Manager v. Smt Radha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. Smt Radha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Flavia Noronha @ Flavy Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri. K.R.Afsarulla Khan Vs M/S Sharma Transports

Smt Ramya Vs Sri Raghu

B M S College of Engineering Vs State of Karnataka

S Jayavikram Vs Sorake Chandra Shekar

B. K. Prakash Vs Sriram General Insurance Company Limited