Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1164
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Udaybhaskar, S/o Late C.H. Ramakrishna - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 24791 of 2012 (MV-D)
Decided on : 09-09-2025
For the Appellant : SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV
For the Respondent: SRI. A.M. MALIPATIL, ADV
Insurers can only defend claims on grounds specified by the Motor Vehicles Act and cannot introduce new defenses in appeal, reaffirming the necessity of timely procedural compliance.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim petition for compensation due to road traffic accident - The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,12,000/- for the death of the deceased - Insurance Company's appeal based on non-joinder of necessary parties dismissed, holding that it cannot raise the issue at appeal stage. (Paras 3, 4, 13, 18, 20)
(B) Liability of Insurer - Under Sections 149(2) and 170 of the Act, the insurer can only defend claims on specific grounds outlined by the Act and cannot introduce new defences at appeal. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The deceased were involved in a collision while returning from a marriage; both sustained grievous injuries and died. The petitioner sought compensation for the deceased. (Paras 3, 8)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's judgment is upheld as there was no significant error shown regarding the case's merits or the insurer's defenses. (Paras 20)
Issues: The key issue concerned whether the claim petition was maintainable in the absence of the vehicle owner's presence and if the insurer could raise new issues during the appeal. (Paras 10, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the insurer is limited to contesting claims based solely on statutory grounds per the Motor Vehicles Act and that procedural defenses must be raised timely. (Paras 15, 17)
Result: Appeal dismissed; confirmation of the Tribunal's judgment.
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and award dated 02.07.2012 passed in MVC No.216/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Gangavathi (for short ‘the Tribunal’).
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
On 25.06.2010, the deceased Sai Krishna, SriPadma, and others, had been to Tirupathi to attend the marriage of their relative. On, 27.06.2010, after attending the marriage, while they were returning to their native place in a car bearing No.KA-37/M-3910, the vehicle/ Car, driven by Ramakrishna, came near the Madanapalli–Molakala Cheruvu main road. At that time, Ramakrishna, who was driving the said car , drove the same at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and collided with a lorry bearing registration No. TN-67/F-9699. As a result, the deceased Saikrishna and Sripadma sustained grievous injuries, and they succumbed to the injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT seeking a compensation for the death of Sripadma in the road traffic accident.
4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the claim petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties and there is a violation of policy conditions. It is contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective license as of the date of the accident. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Although, two separate claim petitions were filed, they were clubbed together, and separate issues were framed by the Tribunal.
6. To substantiate the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner was examined as PW-1, and marked 11 documents as Ex.P1 to P11. In rebuttal, the Development Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW-1, and marked 1 document as Ex.R1.
7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed to claim petition in part vide judgment dated 02.07.2012 and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,12,000/- to the petitioner and held that the Insurance Company is liable to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest.
8. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Judgment and award passed in MVC No.216/2011, preferred this appeal.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the owner of the vehicle has not been arrayed as a party in the claim petition. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable for the non-joinder of the necessary parties. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the connected claim petition i.e. MVC No.215/2011, the petitioner had not arrayed the owner of the vehicle as a party. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the common Judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.215/2011 had preferred an appeal in MFA No.24792/2012 before this Court. He submits that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed by this Court vide Judgment dated 24.07.2013. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability.
13. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident, that the Sai Krishna and Sripadma have sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal was justified in recording the finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Though, the Insurance Company has raised a defense regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the owner of the offending vehic
