Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
The Manager, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Anbdul Nabeer @ Abdul Nabi S/o Shaikshavali @ Shaiksab - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 101576, 101577, 101578 of 2015
Decided On : 08-09-2025
For the Appellant : S.K. Kayakamath
For the Respondent: B.S. Sangati
The insurance company's claims of fraud did not invalidate the awards as the tribunal adequately supported its decisions with credible evidence, establishing petitioners' entitlement to compensation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Road traffic accident - Compensation sought by petitioners due to injuries sustained from an accident caused by negligent riding of the offending vehicle's driver - Tribunal awarded compensation after assessing evidence - Insurance company appeals citing fraud and inconsistency in evidence - Tribunal's decision affirmed. (Paras 2, 9, 10, 21, 26)
(B) Liability of Insurer - Insurer's liability arises from the negligence of the driver, not undermined by claims of a lack of valid driving license when evidence supports the petitioners' claims. (Paras 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sustained injuries in a motorcycle accident due to the negligent riding of another vehicle. Claim petitions were filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, and compensation was awarded by the Tribunal after examining evidence, particularly disability certificates.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal assessed injuries and awarded compensation of Rs.1,58,262/-; Rs.1,60,637/-; and Rs.1,51,812/- in different petitions, directing the insurer to pay, which the court affirmed.
Issues: The main issues pertained to the assessment of injuries, the legitimacy of the disability certificates, and allegations of fraud made by the insurance company against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company failed to substantiate claims of fraud and misrepresentation, reinforcing that a valid claim is not vitiated by the prior non-disclosure of alleged fraud, particularly when evidenced by valid medical documentation.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of negligence and liability concerning the accident. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. disputes regarding the validity of the injury assessment. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 3. assessment of liability for the accident. (Para 16 , 20) |
| 4. evaluation of permanent disability claims. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 5. issues of fraud and additional evidence considerations. (Para 22 , 24 , 26) |
| 6. final decision to uphold the tribunal's judgment. (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
1. These Appeals are filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by a common judgment and award dated 11.03.2015 passed in MVC Nos.577, 578 and 579 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Member VI-MACT at Kudligi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows:
On 08.04.2014, the petitioners were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-35/E-9517. The rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-35/U-5088 came from hind direction driven by Mohammad Ghouse and dashed to the hind portion of the petitioners motorcycle, resulting in the petitioners sustaining a grievous injuries. Immediately, they were admitted to the hospital. The petitioners spent a huge amount towards medical and other expenses, as such, they filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petitions.
3. A Notice was issued to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The Owner of the offending motorcycle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that he is the owner of the offending motorcycle. It is contended that the vehicle was insured and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against him.
4. The rider of the offending motorcycle filed a statement of objections stating that he is the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-35/U-5088. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-35/E-9517, which is insured with the insurance company and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount. Accordingly prays to dismiss the claim petition against them.
5. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and it is denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending motorcycle. It is also contended that the rider of the motor cycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company.
6. The Tribunal clubbed all the claim petitions, and framed the common issues.
7. The petitioners, to prove their claim averments in all the claim petitions, examined themselves as PW-1 to PW-3, examined the doctor as PW-4 to PW-6 and marked21 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-21.
8. The insurance company has not examined any witnesses, nor marked any documents.
9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part vide common Judgment dated 11.03.2015 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,58,262/- in M.V.C. No.577 of 2014, a sum of Rs.1,60,637/- in M.V.C No.578 of 2014, and a sum of Rs.1,51,812/- in M.V.C. No.579 of 2014 and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners in all the cases.
10. The insurance company, aggrieved by the impugned common judgment and award, filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals.
11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company, and the learned counsel for the petitioners.
12. The Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the doctor who has issued the Disability Certificate is not a treated doctor, and furthermore, he submits that the doctor was suspended fr
