Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1166
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Hanumantha @ K.Hanumanthappa, S/o. Gangappa - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 102829 of 2014 (MV-)
Decided on : 09-09-2025
For the Appellant :SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. MANJUNATH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE
Deviation beyond a permit limit does not constitute a policy violation under the Motor Vehicles Act, thus both owner and insurer remain jointly liable.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Appeal challenging the award due to violation of policy conditions related to permit restrictions. The court held that deviation from a permit route does not negate liability unless the use contravenes the policy terms. (Para 18)
(B) Liability - The court found that the vehicle had a valid permit but was driven beyond its limits, thereby not violating policy conditions. The tribunal's decision to impose liability jointly on the owner and insurer was upheld. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sustained injuries in a traffic accident caused by a truck driven negligently. The Insurance Company challenged the tribunal's award, arguing that the vehicle was outside its permit route.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed, and the tribunal's award of Rs.1,41,900/- was confirmed.
Issues: Whether deviation of route is a breach of policy conditions under the M.V. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that exceeding permit limits does not amount to policy violation, thereby upholding the tribunal's ruling on joint liability.
Result: The Appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and filing details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments about liability and policy conditions. (Para 5 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. evidence considered and issues framed. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. final order and confirmation of tribunal's decision. (Para 8 , 9 , 14) |
| 5. interpretation of permit conditions and liability. (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 25.08.2014 passed in MVC No.220/2013 by the learned III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballari.
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:
3. On 11.10.2012, at about 7.00 a.m., the petitioner and one Dodda Basaya were proceeding by walk for taking sticks in front of the water tank, Kudithini-Kampli Road, Hosa Daroji village. At that time, one truck bearing Reg.No.TN-23/AH-7106, came at a high speed, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, and dash to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner had sustained the grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Accordingly prays to allow the claim petition.
4. A Notices were issued to the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Despite the service of a notice, they remained absent, and were placed ex-parte.
5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company admitted the issuance of the policy regarding the offending vehicle. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. It is contended that the owner of the vehicle has no permit to ply the said truck on the said route, at the time of the accident. It is contended that the there is a breach of the policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.
6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.
7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. Conversely, the Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1, and marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 25.08.2014 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,41,900/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization, and held that the owner and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount.
9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.220/2013, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the truck was plying outside the permit route. He submits that the permit of the offending vehicle is to ply only in the state of Tamil Nadu and not in Karnataka, and the accident occurred in Karnataka. Thus, there is a breach of the policy conditions, and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, as claimed by the petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties.
14. The point, that would arise for my consideration is regardi
