Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 443022
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
UMESH M ADIGA, J
M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
PRABHAKAR S/O. RANGADAMAYA – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3541 OF 2016(MV-I)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.S.LAKSHMINARASAPPA, A.M.VENKATESH
For the Respondents:
An insurer is liable to indemnify for compensation unless the driver was operating under a suspended license due to prior offenses.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Appeal against judgment for compensation regarding injury sustained in an accident - Insurer argues liability based on the suspension of the rider’s driving license - The rider had been operating under a suspended license due to a drunk driving charge at the time of the accident, thus making the insurer liable to indemnify the third party while maintaining recovery rights against the owner. (Paras 11, 12)
(B) Liability of Insurers - An insurer is liable to pay compensation unless the driver was not authorized to operate the vehicle at the time of the accident due to suspension of the driving license. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The claimant was injured in a motorcycle accident attributable to another rider’s negligent driving. The Tribunal awarded Rs.39,100 as compensation, which the insurer challenged, claiming non-liability due to the rider’s license suspension.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal found the insurer liable to compensate the victim but allowed them recovery rights against the vehicle's owner as the rider operated under a suspended license.
Issues: Whether the insurer is liable for compensation despite the suspension of the driver’s license at the time of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a license under suspension renders the rider unauthorized for operation, thus establishing insurer liability to third parties while preserving their recovery rights against the vehicle owner.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant's injuries due to accident caused by negligence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. insurer disputes liability based on driver's license status. (Para 9) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by respondent No.1 – insurer against the judgment and award dated 02.02.2016 passed by the 21st Additional Small Causes Judge, MACT, SCCH- 23, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC.No.5153/2014 challenging its liability to pay the compensation on the ground of suspension of driving license at the time of the accident.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, on
20.11.2014, at about 7.45 p.m, while the claimant was riding a Hondia Dio bearing registration No.KA-06-EH- 3976 on Bengalru - Kanakapura Road, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-13-V-9678, by its rider. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained fracture of left shoulder, joint dislocation of (Lt) ankle joint and right foot and other injuries all over the body. He took treatment as in-patient and he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.
4. Respondent No.1 in its written statement denied the contentions of the claimant. It denied its liability to pay the compensation. He also contended that rider of the motor cycle was not holding a valid and effective driving license to ride the said class of vehicle and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the contentions of the claim petition and he further contended that it was insured with respondent No.1, in the event the petition is allowed, respondent No.1 is liable to pay the same. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.
7. The claimant to prove his case examined PW-1 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. Respondents examined 3 witnesses as RW-1 to Rw3 and marked Exs.R1 to R22. After hearing the matter, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.39,100/-. Same is challenged in the present appeal.
8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of accident, the driving license issued to the rider of the offending vehicle was suspended due to drunk and drive. Therefore, insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/appellant relied on the evidence of RW-2 and Ex.R15. The fact of the accident and amount of compensation awarded are not in dispute. The only dispute is ; Whether insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle? RW-1 is the manager of respondent – insurer. He has stated that at the time of accident, driving license issued to rider of the motor cycle was suspended due to drunk and drive; He was not holding valid license to ride said class of vehicle. Therefore, insurer is not liable to pay the compensation.
10. Respondent – Insurer examined RW-3 i.e RTO.
According to his evidence, the said license was suspended from 30.10.2014 to 29.01.2015. Hence, he was not authorized to ride the motor cycle during that period. In his cross-examination, RW-2 has stated that in Ex.R15, license was suspended due to drunk and drive. In the cross-examination of the insurer, he has stated that after intimation from the concerned police about drunk and drive, they cancelled the driving license.
11. Perused Ex.R15, it is stated that it was prior to
21.07.2014 the said license was suspended due to drunk and drive and the said order was released on 24.07.2014, which is noted in Ex.R15. Subsequently, as per endorsement made on driving license, it was suspended from 30.10.2014 to 29.01.2015 and during the interregnum period the accident occurred. It is also pertinent to note that this is not a case of the driving licence having expired, but rather one where the licence was s
