Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1095
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
Saraswathi W/O Late Hanumappa Huvakkanavar – Appellant
Versus
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd Divisional Officer, Yalamanchali Complex – Respondent
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100164 OF 2015, IN MFA NO. 20310 OF 2013
Decided On : 11-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI. ABHISHEK BARIGIDAD, SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI
For the Respondent: SRI. S. S. JOSHI, SRI. HAREESH S. NAIK
The court affirmed that the Insurance Company bears the primary liability to compensate victims of traffic accidents even with policy breaches and must recover the amount from the vehicle owner later.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Compensation for death in road traffic accident - Court enhanced the Tribunal's award from Rs. 8,20,600/- to Rs. 15,13,200/- for loss of dependency and other heads, directing the Insurance Company to pay and recover from the owner - Clarified duty of Insurance Company to meet compensation claims first as per judicial precedent. (Paras 17-20)
(B) Insurance - Liability of the insurer - When policy conditions are breached, the insurer must still pay the compensation to the third party and may recover from the owner. (Para 16)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and factual background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. statements of objections and defenses. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments presented by parties. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. establishment of negligence and liability. (Para 15) |
| 5. determination of compensation amount. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. final order and conclusion. (Para 20) |
ORAL JUDGMENT :
PER: ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
1. This Appeal and the cross objection arise out of the judgment and award dated 26.07.2012 passed in MVC No.182/2011 by the learned MACT, Presiding Officer, and the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, (for short ‘the Tribunal’).
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal and the cross objection are as follows:
It is the case of the petitioners that, the deceased Hanumappa met with an accident on 10.02.2011, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-35/T-0391 and trolley No.MYR-1602. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioners, being his legal representatives, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, seeking compensation for the death of Hanumappa in a road traffic accident. Hence, prays to allow the claim petition.
3. The driver and the owner of the offending tractor appeared before the Tribunal, and the owner has filed a statement of objections, which is adopted by the driver of the offending tractor.
4. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections, denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the policy was valid from 07.09.2010 to 06.09.2011. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident and that it was insured with the insurance company as of the date of the accident. There is no breach of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle.
5. The Insurance Company filed its 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 license as of the date of the accident and there is a breach of policy conditions. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount as claimed by the petitioners. The petition is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.
6. The petitioners, to substantiate their claim, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW-1, one witness was examined as P.W.2, and marked 7 documents as Ex.P1 to P7. In rebuttal, the officer of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1, and produced five documents marked as Ex.R1 to R-5.
7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 26.07.2012, and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,20,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realsiation. It is held that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The petition against respondent No.3 before the tribunal -the Insurance Company was dismissed.
8. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed the appeal in MFA No. 20310/2013, and the owner, being aggrieved by the liability fastened on him, preferred the cross-objection in MFA CROB NO100164/2015.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the owner, and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that the Tribunal should have fastened the liability jointly and severally on the respondents therein i.e., before the tribunal. He also submits that,
