Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19344
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
RAVI V HOSMANI, J
HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
GANAPATHI S/O SHIVARAM KORAVI – Respondent
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202695 OF 2019 (MV-I)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI
For the Respondents: SRI SHARANABASAPPA K. BABASHETTY, SRI ANAND V. TURE
Insurer remains liable for compensation even if the motorcycle rider had only a learner's license, provided it was valid as per statutory requirements.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Appeal against liability - Claimant sustained injuries due to negligent riding of insured motorcycle - Tribunal held insurer liable based on learner's license - Insurer contested validity of learner's license and denied liability - Court clarified that statutory requirements on licensing preserved liability. (Paras 9, 11, 12)
(B) Appeal - Insurer's contention centered on non-possession of a valid license for the rider - The court upheld the tribunal's findings on evidence regarding the learner's license, which satisfied legal requirements - Insurer failed to establish contention to escape liability. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
Insurer appealed against the liability for compensation awarded to claimant, who suffered permanent disability from an accident caused by negligent riding of insured motorcycle, despite challenges on the rider's license validity.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal's decision to hold the insurer liable was justified based on the evaluation of the learner's license produced, fulfilling legal prerequisites for a valid claim.
Issues: The main issue was whether the tribunal was right in holding the insurer liable given the rider's non-possession of a valid driving license at the time of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that not possessing a permanent license did not absolve the insurer from liability if the rider met legal obligations of holding a learner's license prior to the accident date.
Result: The appeal is dismissed, confirming the tribunal's award.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant sustained injuries due to negligent riding. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. insurer contested liability based on the validity of rider's license. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. the appeal was dismissed based on the tribunal's justification for liability. (Para 8) |
| 4. the court examined the learner's license validity and its implications for liability. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202695 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD., # 82, 6TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, K.P.AGRAHARA, GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU.
(NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI)
…APPELLANT (BY SMT.PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GANAPATHI S/O SHIVARAM KORAVI, AGE:33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOOVINBHAVI, TQ: CHINCHOLI, DIST: KALABURAGI, NOW R/AT: PRASHANT NAGAR (A), RAJAPUR, KALABURAGI – 585 401.
2. MARUTHI S/O SIDDAPPA VALIKAR, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER AND OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-43/J-2222, R/O: TADAPALLI, POST. PASTAPUR, TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 101.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K. BABASHETTY, ADV., FOR R1;
SRI ANAND V. TURE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2019 IN MVC NO.607/2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 01.10.2019 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Kalaburagi (for short, ‘tribunal’), in MVC no.607/2016, this appeal is filed.
2. Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel submitted, appeal was by insurer challenging award on liability. It was submitted, as per claimant on 25.03.2015, when claimant was riding pillion on motorcycle no.AP-25/AC-5974, and they were returning to Hoovinbhavi village, rider of another motorcycle no.KA-43/J-2222, rode it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant’s motorcycle causing accident. In accident, claimant sustained several fractural injuries and was admitted to hospital. Despite taking treatment, he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, against owner and insurer of offending motorcycle.
3. On contest, wherein, owner/insurer opposed claim petition denying entire claim petition averments, alleged contributory negligence against rider of claimant’s motorcycle and denied liability on ground of violation of terms and conditions of policy, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence, claimant examined himself and Dr.Ravi E.Shivaraya as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. Insurer examined its official and RTO as RWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R3.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of insured motorcycle by its rider, claimant had sustained injuries and was entitled for compensation as follows:
Sl.No.
Heads
Amount
a.
Towards injury pain and suffering
`40,000/-
b.
Towards medical expenses
`600/-
c.
Towards future medical expenses
`20,000/-
d.
Towards food and extra nourishment and medical attendant
`1,000/-
e.
Towards conveyance
`3,000/-
f.
Towards loss of income during treatment
`14,000/-
g.
Towards permanent disability
`1,42,800/-
h.
Deprivation of future amenities
`20,000/-
Total compensation
`2,41,400/-
5. Referring to copy of learners licence stated to have been produced, it overruled objection of insurer on ground of liability and held insurer liable to pay same. Aggrieved, insurer was in appeal.
6. It was submitted, as per insurer, rider of insured motorcycle was not having driving licence to ride motorcycle as on date of accident. It
