Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21926
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
D. K. SINGH, VENKATESH NAIK T, JJ
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SMT. RADHA AND OTHERS – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.503 OF 2020 (MV-D)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI K. SRIDHARA
For the Respondents: SRI BIMBADHAR M. GOWDAR, SRI PRADEEP NAIK K.
Insurance companies remain liable to compensate victims even with disputes over the policy, subject to rights of recovery from the vehicle owner.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal filed against judgment and award by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Insurance Company contested liability due to the expired driving license of the vehicle owner - Compensation of Rs.16,35,000/- was awarded to claimants, with directions for recovery from the owner - Court confirmed the Tribunal's decision as no error of law found. (Paras 1-5)
(B) The court affirmed the legal principle that insurance companies are liable to compensate regardless of policy issues, retaining the right to recover from the vehicle owner under specific circumstances. (Paras 2-4)
Facts of the case:
The accident occurred on 15-6-2017, with the insurance company denying liability based on an expired driving license of the vehicle owner. The Tribunal awarded a substantial compensation to claimants, directing payment by the Insurance Company and recovery from the vehicle owner.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that there was no legal error in the Tribunal's judgment, thereby dismissing the appeal from the Insurance Company.
Issues: The primary issue revolved around the insurer's liability despite the expired driving license of the offending vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that, under the previous provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company must pay compensation but could seek recovery from the vehicle owner.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. insurance company's appeal against liability ruling. (Para 1) |
| 2. details about the accident and compensation awarded. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. legal context and liability principles affirmed. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's reasoning related to appeal dismissal. (Para 5) |
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company impugning the judgment and award dated 25-3-2019 in M.V.C. No.985 of 2017 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class and Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-10, Sagar.
2. The Insurance Company denied its liability before the Tribunal on the ground that the driving licence got expired on the date of the accident and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and evidence on record, has awarded compensation of Rs.16,35,000/- in favour of the claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay the said compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle.
4. The accident took place on 15-6-2017 i.e. before the amendment was brought under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , in the year 2022. The relevant law at that time was that even if there are issues with the insurance policy or vehicle owner's actions, the Insurance Company would be directed to pay the compensation, however, with liberty to recover it from the vehicle owner, or the insured party, under certain circumstances.
5. We have perused the judgment. We do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error of law, which requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed Amount in deposit, if any, be transferred to the Tribunal, forthwith.
