Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 2496
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
B.MURALIDHARA PAI, J.
Shri. Ramashidhanna, S/o. Mallikarjun Poleshi – Appellant
Versus
Shri Prakash, S/o. Ramachandra Bennur – Respondent
M.F.A. NO.101267 Of 2014 (MV-I)
Decided On : 28-11-2025
For the Appellant : Sri. Sanjay S. Katageri, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri. S. K. Kayakamath, Adv.
Claimants may recover compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act despite having received partial payment from their insurer, provided they substantiate their claims with adequate evidence.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim for compensation due to vehicle damage in road traffic accident - Tribunal dismissed claim stating compensation was already received from own insurer; however, claimant proves entitlement to further compensation and own insurer's settlement is insufficient - The appeal challenges the dismissal and the insurer’s claim of policy cancellation due to cheque dishonor. (Paras 2-3, 15-21)
(B) Insurance Law - Non-payment of premium - Policy void ab initio - Insurer must prove valid cancellation of the insurance policy prior to accident; evidence of cancellation was found lacking. (Paras 17-20)
Facts of the case:
Claimant filed MVC No. 2290/2011 to recover Rs. 2,50,000/- post-accident, claiming insufficient reimbursement of repair costs post-accident and asserting loss of income. Tribunal dismissed claiming evidence insufficient.
Findings of Court:
Claimant entitled to Rs. 12,910/- compensation not reimbursed by own insurer, with 6% interest from the date of petition.
Issues: Whether the claimant could recover balance amount post-insurer compensation and whether the insurance was validly cancelled.
Ratio Decidendi: Tribunal erred in denying balance for repairs; claimant provided sufficient proof of expenses; insurer’s evidence for policy cancellation was inadequate.
Result: Appeal allowed in part; Tribunal’s judgment set aside; new compensation ordered.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant's appeal stemming from dismissed compensation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding compensation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. assessment of evidence and claimant's actual loss calculations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. analysis of insurance policy validity in light of premium non-payment. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's final decision and order granting partial appeal. (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT :
B. MURALIDHARA PAI, J.
1. The claimant in MVC No. 2290/2011, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khanapur, has filed this appeal, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim petition by the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2014.
2. The claimant filed MVC No. 2290/2011 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, Truck No. KA-17-1666, for the loss sustained due to damage caused to his Mahindra Bolero pick-up goods vehicle, bearing Registration No. KA-22-A-8358, in a road traffic accident that occurred on 18.04.2011.
3. After contest, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, though holding that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence of the driver of the offending truck. The Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that the claimant had already received compensation for the damage from his own insurer and could not claim again from the respondents. The Tribunal also held that the claimant had not produced sufficient evidence to establish the actual loss suffered.
4. In this appeal, the claimant challenges the findings of the Tribunal, contending that he is entitled to recover the balance amount of actual loss since his own insurer reimbursed only Rs. 45,050/-, whereas he incurred expenses of Rs. 1,73,465/- towards vehicle repair. He further contends that he suffered pecuniary loss due to his vehicle being off the road and that PW- 2’s testimony proving loss of Rs. 73,372/- for 52 days was wrongly ignored. He also disputes the Tribunal’s finding regarding absence of valid insurance coverage for the offending vehicle.
5. During arguments, learned counsel for the claimant relied on the following Judgments :
I. Sri Hemanth Raju v. Sri Punitha H.J. (NC:2023:KHC:46025)
II. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakshmama ( AIR 2012 SC 2817 )
III. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur ( (1998) 1 SCC 371 ) and he prayed for allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer relied on:
I. Deddappa v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (MANU/SC/4587/2007)
II. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra (MANU/SC/0112/2001)
and submitted that the policy covering the offending truck was cancelled owing to dishonor of the cheque issued towards premium and therefore was void ab initio. He further relied on the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Manner of Receipt of Premium) Regulations, 2002, submitting that the insurer’s risk commences only upon receipt of premium.
7. It is undisputed that the vehicles Mahindra Bolero (KA-22- 8358) and Truck (KA-17-1666) were involved in the accident on 18.04.2011 near Mugalihal Village. The Tribunal held that the accident in question occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of truck driver. Neither the owner nor insurer of the truck has challenged the said finding.
8. The claimant seeks compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards repair cost and loss of income. He asserts that he spent more than Rs. 1,66,000/- for repairs and suffered income loss of Rs. 73,372/- due to the vehicle remaining off the road. The respondents disputed these contentions, requiring the claimant to establish them with evidence.
9. The claimant examined himself as PW-1, marked documents, and examined two more witnesses. His primary reliance is on Ex.P9, his claim application to his own insurer and attached documents showing that he sought Rs. 1,73,435/- based on estimated repair costs. The documents indicate that the cla
