Karnataka High Court
M/S New India Assurance Company Limited vs Prabhakar on 18 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27069
MFA No. 3541 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3541 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
REGIONAL OFFICE NO.2-B,
UNITY BUIDLING ANNEX,
MISSION ROAD/ LALBAGH ROAD,
BENGALURU-560027.
NOW REP. BY ITS APPEALS HUB,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE-III,
2ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
(BY SRI. K.S.LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
by SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
ANNAPURNA G
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. PRABHAKAR
S/O. RANGADAMAYA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.35, GADIPALYA,
THATTAGUPPE, BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU-560082.
2. MR. SHASHIDHARA M.S.,
S/O.SUBRAMANYA R.N.,
NO.195/2,
SRI GAYATHRI VINAYAKA TEMPLE STREET,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27069
MFA No. 3541 of 2016
HC-KAR
VINAYAKA NAGAR, P & T COLONY,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.
VIDE ORDER DATED 22.04.2024, SERVICE OF
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5153/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE, & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
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-
NC: 2025:KHC:27069 MFA No. 3541 of 2016 HC-KAR
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. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:27069 MFA No. 3541 of 2016 HC-KAR
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 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:27069 MFA No. 3541 of 2016 HC-KAR 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 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:27069 MFA No. 3541 of 2016 HC-KAR 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 suspended as a penalty for driving under the influence of alcohol. Under such circumstances, the licence granted was kept in abeyance during the suspension period, and the rider of the motorcycle was not permitted to operate the vehicle on a public road. Otherwise, the order of suspension passed by the concerned authority for drunk driving would have no significance. Therefore, it must be -7- NC: 2025:KHC:27069 MFA No. 3541 of 2016 HC-KAR held that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. While it is not in dispute that he did possess a driving licence, it was under suspension at the relevant time. In such circumstances, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the third party and is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
12. Accordingly, the following I pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 02.02.2016 passed by the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT (SCCH-23) at Bengaluru is modified;
iii. Respondent No.1 shall pay the compensation and it is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the said vehicle.
iv. The remaining portion of the impugned order is not disturbed.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:27069 MFA No. 3541 of 2016 HC-KAR v. Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.
Send back the trial Court records to the Tribunal along with the copy of the judgment .
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18