Insurance companies are liable for compensation despite driver negligence if the vehicle is insured, noting conditions of policy violation.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 08.12.2021 passed in MVC No.949 of 2020 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hukkeri (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

3. It is the case of the claimants that on 27.08.2019, their son—Mahantesh met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tempo Trax bearing Reg.No.KA-23/M-9132. The deceased was working in M/s.AKP Industries, Machhe, Belagavi and was getting ₹15,000/- monthly salary and was maintaining his family. The claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased Mahantesh filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of his death and pray to allow the claim petition.

4. Notice was issued to the respondents. Despite the service of notice, respondents remained unrepresented and were placed ex-parte.

5. The claimants to substantiate the claim petition averments, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and marked 10 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-10.

6. On assessment of verbal and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part with cost, and the compensation amount of ₹20,78,400/- was awarded with an interest at 6% per annum and held that the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation amount with interest and directed respondent No.1—owner to deposit the compensation amount with interest within 3 months.

7. The claimants dissatisfied with the adequacy of the compensation, filed this appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel for the insurance company.

9. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is alleged that though the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, admittedly, as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. He submits that, the Tribunal should have directed respondent No.2—Insurance Company to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

10. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunita & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025 INSC 867) (Civil Appeal No. 9538 of 2025, Decided on July 17, 2025). Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal.

12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

13. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is regarding the quantum of the compensation.

14. There is no dispute that the deceased Mahantesh met with an accident, and sustained grievous injuries and later, succumbed to the same. The claimants have produced the copy of the charge-sheet, marked as Exhibit P-7, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.

15. The police have filed a charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3 read with Section 181, Section 5 read with Section 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

16. From the perusal