Karnataka High Court
Divisional Manager vs Ariff Lalsab Shildedar on 20 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512
MFA No. 100143 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100143 OF 2014 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI,
REP. BY REGIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSUACE CO. LTD.,
MOTOR 3RD PARTY CLAIMS HUB,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADV)
AND:
1. ARIFF LALSAB SHILDEDAR
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: MASON,
R/O: DEMATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
MOHANKUMAR DIST: BELAGAVI.
B SHELAR
2. BASHIRAHMAD IMAMSAB TALLUR
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
SHELAR R/O: DASTIKOPPA, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
Date: 2025.08.30
15:41:45 +0530 DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADV FOR R1,
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.10.2013, PASSED
IN MVC NO.392/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDL. MACT, BAILHONGAL, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION
OF RS.2,57,400/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512
MFA No. 100143 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and award dated 30.10.2013 passed in MVC No.392/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Bailhongal, (for short 'the Tribunal).
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as follows:
On 27.05.2010 at about 23.30 hours, on NH-4 Hanchinal, near Gulabsha Darga, the petitioner was travelling by sitting in a Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-16/C-1153 from Vishalgad to his native place. When the Tempo Trax came near to the spot, the driver of the said Tempo Trax drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed the same to a Truck bearing No.KA-23/4732, -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014 HC-KAR which was going ahead of the Tempo Trax in a slow manner, as a result the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. The petition has spent a huge amount towards medical expenses. A criminal case was registered in Crime No.100/10 against the driver of the Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-16/C-1153. The petitioner has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.
3. A Notice was issued to the owner. The owner filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that as on the date of the accident the driver of the Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-16/C-1153 was driving the vehicle at a moderate speed and when the tempo came near the truck, the driver of the truck suddenly applied the brake, as a result, the tempo dashed to the truck. It was further contended that there was no fault on the part of driver of the Tempo Trax and the driver of the Tempo Trax was holding a valid -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014 HC-KAR and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the vehicle.
4. The Insurnace Company filed statement of objections and contended that, as of the date of the accident, the vehicle Tempo Trax No.KA-16/C-1153 was insured with the Insurance Company under a private car package policy. However, the owner of the vehicle was used for hire purposes, which amounts to a breach of the policy conditions. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to negligent act of the driver of the Truck bearing No.KA-23/4732. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance Company.
5. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues.
6. To substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1, examined three witnesses as PW-2 to PW-4, and produced 64 documents, which were -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014 HC-KAR marked as Ex.P1 to P64. Respondent No.2-Insurnace Company has not led any oral evidence. However, with the consent, marked one document as Ex.R1.
7. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 30.10.2013 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,57,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It was further held that the respondents i.e. owner and Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.
8. Aggrieved by the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.392/2011, the Insurance Company has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the petitioner. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014 HC-KAR
10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-16/C-1153 was insured with the Insurance Company under a private car package policy. As per terms of the policy, the owner of the vehicle was not permitted to use it for hire or reward purposes. He submits that as of the date of the accident, the vehicle was used for hire purpose. There is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, he submits that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner. He further submits that PW-1 himself admitted that, as of the date of the accident, the said vehicle was used for hire purpose. The admission of PW-1 was not considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Accordingly, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that, in case the Court concludes that there is a breach of policy condition and he submit that as of the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014 HC-KAR date of accident, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. Therefore, he submits that the Insurance Company may be directed to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the leaned counsel for the parties.
13. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding liability.
Reg. Liability
14. There is no dispute that the petitioner sustained the grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. Admittedly, he was travelling in the Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-16/C-1153 and the driver of the Tempo Trax dashed to the Truck bearing No.KA-23/4732. The said Truck was ahead of the Tempo Trax. A chargesheet was filed against the driver of the Tempo Trax bearing -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014 HC-KAR No.KA-16/C-1153. During the cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that the vehicle was used for hire purposes as of the date of the accident. Though, the policy was in force as of the date of the accident, it was admittedly a private car package policy according to which, the vehicle is to be used only for his personal purpose, and the owner of the vehicle cannot use it for hire or reward purpose. In view of the admission of PW-1 that the Tempo Trax was used for hire purposes and he was travelling in the said Tempo Trax ,there is violation of policy conditions by the owner of the Tempo Trax as he has used it for hire purposes. Admittedly, as of the date of the accident the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the policy was in force. The Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
15. The Tribunal, without considering the said aspect, committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the Judgment and award -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014 HC-KAR passed by the Tribunal against the Insurance Company is arbitrary, perverse and erroneous.
16. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The Judgment and award dated 30.10.2013 passed in MVC No.392/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T. Bailhongal, is hereby set-aside and consequently, the claim petition against the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014 HC-KAR
(iv) The amount in deposit, if any, and Trial Court Records, be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/-
CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6