Smt K S Praveena Vs Sri v R Rahamathulla — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt K S Praveena Vs Sri v R Rahamathulla — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; judgment and award dated 07.06.2018 in M.V.C.No.2063/2017 modified so that respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, with liberty to recover the same from the owner/respondent No.1 of the Tata Ace (Reg.No.KA-436476); insurer to pay within eight weeks; deposit to be released to the claimants on application in the proportions set out in the impugned award; remaining portion of the award undisturbed; Registry to draw the modified award and transmit records to the Tribunal; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether, although the Tribunal held the owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No.1) alone liable to pay the proportionate compensation to the appellants, the Insurance Company (respondent No.2) should be directed to pay the compensation and recover it from the owner. +1 more

Court's answer

It is respondent No.2/Insurance Company that must pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and recover it from the owner (respondent No.1) of the offending vehicle.

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal's categorical finding that the owner entrusted the vehicle to a driver who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence was not disputed by the insurer's counsel and forms the basis for directing the insurer to pay with recovery from the owner.

Key takeaways

The rate of interest at 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate; the insurer's submission to reduce it to 6% is rejected, no appeal having been filed by the Insurance Company and 9% interest being in accordance with settled provisions (as found in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri. Malyadri. M).ratio¶62-63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Division Bench (Jayant Banerji & Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.; oral judgment by Jayant Banerji, J.), MFA No.9180 of 2018 (MV-D), decided 01.07.2026. Claimants' appeal under S.173(1) MV Act against the award dated 07.06.2018 of the MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-14) in M.V.C.No.2063/2017, wherein the Tribunal had held the owner (respondent No.1) alone liable to pay proportionate compensation because he had entrusted his Tata Ace to a driver without a valid and effective driving licence, without any direction against the insurer. Applying the Supreme Court's dictum in Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba, (2018) 3 SCC 208, the Court held that respondent No.2-insurer (Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.) must pay the compensation in the first instance with liberty to recover it from the owner. The insurer's plea to reduce interest from 9% to 6% was rejected: no appeal had been filed by it on interest, and relying on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri. Malyadri. M, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 4090 (Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.), 9% interest accords with settled provisions, especially in death and permanent disability cases. Appeal allowed in part; award modified accordingly; insurer directed to pay within eight weeks; remaining portion of the award undisturbed; no costs.

NC: 2026:KHC:32733-DB MFA No.9180 of 2018

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9180 OF 2018 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

SMT. K.S.PRAVEENA W/O LATE C.VENKATACHALAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

KUMARI V.LAHARI D/O LATE C.VENKATACHALAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS.

KUMARI THANUSHREE D/O LATE C.VENKATACHALAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS.

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

MASTER V.KOMAL GANIGA S/O LATE C.VENKATACHALAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS.

SRI CHINNAPPA SHETTY S/O DODDAGOVINDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

SMT. ANJINAMMA W/O CHINNAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

2^ND , 3^RD AND 4^TH MINOR APPELLANTS REP.BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER 1^ST APPELLANT, ALL ARE R/AT DODDAKADATHURU VILLAGE & POST, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32733-DB MFA No.9180 of 2018

HC-KAR

AND:

SRI V.R.RAHAMATHULLA S/O V.S.RASOOL SAB, MAJOR, R/AT CHELURU VILLAGE & POST, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 207.

THE SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 3^RD FLOOR, S & S CORNER BUILDING, OPP:BOWRING & LADY CURZON HOSPITAL, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001, REP:BY ITS MANAGER.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.N.KRISHNASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT V/C/O DATED 01.08.2025)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.06.2018 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.2063/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

We note from the records that notice on respondent No.1

has been held to be sufficient vide order of this Court dated

01.08.2025.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32733-DB MFA No.9180 of 2018

HC-KAR

This is the claimant’s appeal impugning the award passed by the XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City (SCCH-14) dated 07.06.2018 in M.V.C.No.2063/2017.

The sole issue being that the Tribunal despite holding the owner of the offending vehicle to be alone liable to pay the mentioned proportionate compensation to the appellants, no order has been passed directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation as aforesaid and to recover it from the owner.

Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has

relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba¹ in this regard.

We have perused the judgment of the Tribunal.

We find that a categorical finding regarding liability

has been returned by the Tribunal that respondent No.1 who was the owner, had entrusted his vehicle Tata Ace to a person/driver who did not possess a valid and effective driving

1 (2018) 3 SCC 208

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32733-DB MFA No.9180 of 2018

HC-KAR

licence at the time of the alleged accident. The charge sheet filed by the police against the driver of the offending vehicle was noted. This evidence on record itself has led to a finding by the Tribunal to that effect. The fact, in all fairness, is not disputed by learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company that the owner alone was held liable to pay the proportionate compensation to the appellants.

We have perused the record as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court cited by learned Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. In the aforesaid judgment, it is categorically observed as follows:

“19. In the present case, the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.1) had produced the insurance certificate indicating that vehicle No. DIL5955 was comprehensively insured by the respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) for unlimited liability. Applying the dictum in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), to subserve the ends of justice, the insurer (respondent No.2) shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.1) in accordance with law.”

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32733-DB MFA No.9180 of 2018

HC-KAR

Therefore we hold that it is respondent

No.2/Insurance Company that must pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and recover it from the owner.

Learned Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance

Company has urged that the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% is excessive and no more than 6% interest should be awarded. Thus, he has sought for appropriate modification of the award.

Firstly, we notice that no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. Secondly, on aspect of interest awarded by the Tribunal, one of us, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju , has in a recent judgment captioned United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sri. Malyadri. M And Others² , after analyzing the precedents of the Supreme Court and this Court, has found that an award of 9% interest is in accordance with the settled provisions in the present day scenario, especially in cases of death and permanent disability.

In this view of the matter, we cannot accept the submissions of learned Counsel for respondent No.2 in the

2 2026 SCC Online Kar 4090

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:32733-DB MFA No.9180 of 2018

HC-KAR

given facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest

is appropriately awarded by the Tribunal.

In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed and the award is modified to the effect that respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants, thereafter, it will have liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle who is the respondent No.1. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part;

(ii) The judgment and award dated 07.06.2018 in M.V.C.No.2063/2017 passed by the XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City (SCCH-14) is modified to the effect that respondent No.2Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization with liberty to recover the same from the owner/respondent No.1 of Tata Ace vehicle (Reg.No.KA-436476).

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32733-DB MFA No.9180 of 2018

HC-KAR

(iii) The remaining portion of the impugned award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed.

(iv) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within eight weeks from today.

(v) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the appellants/claimants on filing of an appropriate application for withdrawal of the enhanced amount in the proportion as set out in the Impugned Award.

(vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly.

(vii) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of this judgment and the records to the concerned Tribunal.

(viii) Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

KSR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10