THE MANAGER THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs SMT. NOORJAHAN HAJISAB MULTANI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100849 OF 2025 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
NEAR KOLHAPUR CIRCLE OPP RAMDEV HOTEL
BELAGAVI-590011 DISTRICT BELAGAVI
POLICY ISSUED:- ITS OFFICE MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL
TH
COMPLEX 4 FLOOR LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD OPP KMC
COOEGE MANAGALORE-574173
(INSURER OF CRUISER VEHICLE
NO KA 13/B 8254)
(POLICY NO 790921823 400000065)
(VALID FROM 27-12-2018 TO 26-12-2019
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NOORJAHAN HAJISAB MULTANI
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. NAGARMUNNOLI-591222
TALUK: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI,
KARNATAKA STATE.
2. KUMAR MANJUMIL HAJISAB MULTANI
AGE: 8 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R.O NAGARMUNNOLI-591222
TALUK: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI,
KARNATAKA STATE.
3. KUMAR MOHAMMADSAFAN HAJISAB MULTANI
AGE: 6 YEARS,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R.O NAGARMUNNOLI-591222
TALUK: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI
KARNATAKA STATE.
(SINCE RESPONDENT NO 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO 1)
4. SHRI. GULAB HASAN MULTANI
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R.O NAGARMUNNOLI-591222
TALUK: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI
KARNATAKA STATE.
5. SMT. SHAMASHABDI GULAB MULTANI
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R.O: NAGARMUNNOLI 591222
TALUK: CHIKKODI
DIST: BELAGAVI KARNATAKA STATE.
6. VIRUPAXI SHIVAMURTHI SHIVAPUJE
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BELAKUND-591108
TALUK: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI,
(OWNER OF CRUISER VEHICLE
NO.KA 13/B 8254)
7. SHRI. HEMANTKUMAR G. B.
S/O. BASAVARAJ SHETTY
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KUVEMBU ROAD,
GOURI KOPALU MAIN ROAD,
HASAN-573202
(OWNER OF CRUISER VEHICLE
NO.KA-13/B-8254)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
(R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1;
SMT. GEETA PAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI. VISHWANATH B. SULTANPURI, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND HEAR THE PARTIES AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.12.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-XI BELAGAVI AT
BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.193/2020 BY EXONERATING THE APPELLANT
INSURANCE COMPANY FROM LIABILITY AND REDUCING THE
COMPENSATION BY ACCEPTING THE GROUNDS MADE OUT IN THE
GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
06.10.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
CAV JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 12.12.2024
passed in MVC No.193/2020 by the X Additional District Judge
1
and MACT-XI, Belagavi , the Insurance Company/respondent
No.2 before the Tribunal preferred this appeal challenging the
liability.
2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranks
before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2019 at
about 8:30 p.m., Hajisab Multani was riding the motorcycle
2
bearing registration No.KA-49/U-5349 from Hukkeri towards
Nagarmunnoli, when he reached near Ammanagi Cross, the
1
For short, ‘the Tribunal’
2
For short, ‘the motorcycle’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
driver of Cruiser vehicle bearing registration No.KA-13/B-
3
8254 , drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed
against the motorcycle. Due to said impact, the motorcycle
rider sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries
on the spot.
4. The petitioners who are the legal representatives of
the deceased contended that, prior to the accident, the
deceased was a cloth merchant and earning Rs.30,000/- per
month. Due to his sudden death, the future of the petitioners
has become bleak and miserable and the petitioners lost their
only bread earner. The petitioners further contended that they
have spent huge amount towards shifting of the dead body to
their native place and performed last rites of the deceased.
Accordingly, the petitioners filed a claim petition claiming
compensation before the Tribunal.
5. After filing of the petition, notices have been issued
to the respondents. They appeared through their counsel and
filed their objections denying the date, time, place, factum and
manner of accident; further denied the age, avocation, income
3
For short, ‘the offending vehicle’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
of the deceased, injuries sustained by him and his death due to
accidental injuries.
6. Respondents No.1 and 2 contended that the
petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the
motorcycle
7. Respondent No.2 further contended that the
deceased as well as the driver of offending vehicle were not
holding valid driving license as on the date of accident. Hence,
he is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners; the
cheque bearing No.380453 for Rs.32,464/- dated 27.12.2018,
which has been given for insuring the offending vehicle, has
been dishonoured due to insufficient funds and thus, insurance
policy issued by the respondent No.2 stands cancelled; the
Insurance Company informed the respondent No.3 and
Regional Transport Officer regarding cancellation of policy; in
spite of receipt of the said letter, no fresh premium was paid
for re-insuring the said vehicle under the fresh policy;
respondent No.3 has not at all insured his vehicle with the
respondent No.2. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
8. Respondent No.3 is previous owner of offending
vehicle and the said vehicle was duly insured with respondent
No.2, which is transferred to respondent No.1 in the month of
April-2019 by getting the necessary clearance certificate from
RTO where the vehicle is duly registered and the said vehicle
was duly insured with respondent No.2 by making cash
payment, and respondent No.2 issued the comprehensive
package policy in the name of the respondent No.3 for the
period from 27.12.2018 to 26.12.2019 and at no point of time,
this respondent issued any cheque for a premium for the
insurance of the offending vehicle, as the premium is paid by
cash and not by cheque. After the sale of the vehicle, it was
completely transferred to respondent No.1 along with the
insurance policy issued by respondent No.2. Hence, respondent
No.3 has no obligation to answer the claim of the petitioners.
Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
9. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner No.1 herself
examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P.1
to P.9. On the other hand, respondent No.2 examined its officer
as RW.1. Respondents No.1 and 3 got examined themselves as
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
RW.2 and RW.3 respectively. On behalf of respondents the
documents marked as Ex.R.1 to R.24.
10. On hearing the argument, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition in part by fastening liability on the respondents
No.1 and 2 and awarded compensation under the following
heads:
Loss of dependency 30,04,992/-
Funeral expenses 15,000/-
Loss of estate 15,000/-
Parental Consortium 40,000/-
Spousal Consortium 40,000//-
Filial consortium 40,000/-
Total 31,54,992/-
The Tribunal further directed the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date
of petition till realization.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award,
the respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed this appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued
that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further,
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
the Tribunal has not properly appreciated Ex.R.20-policy where
it is the duty of the party to prove that he has paid the
premium and the Tribunal failed to look into the fact that the
respondent No.3 has not disputed the address written in
Ex.R.21, further the address mentioned in the said intimation
letter Ex.R.1, and the address mentioned in the petition both
are tallied; the Tribunal failed to take note of the time of the
accident; at the time of accident, the policy was cancelled
which was standing in the name of respondent No.3 and there
is no intimation of transfer of vehicle; the Tribunal committed
an error in coming to the conclusion that Ex.R.8 is not belongs
to respondent No.3. As per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, once the letter posted to the correct address, then it
deems to have been served unless the contrary is proved; the
version of respondent No.3 that he has paid premium in terms
of cash and not issued the cheque is unbelievable, but the
Tribunal committed a serious error in believing the version of
the respondent No.3 without any documentary evidence; the
Tribunal tried to put the burden on the Insurance Company
which is erroneous and improper, where the owner of the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
offending vehicle committed a violation of conditions of the
policy by entrusting the vehicle to a driver who was not having
valid and effective driving license. Accordingly, prays to set
aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently
argued that there is no material evidence placed by the
Insurance Company to prove that the policy has been
cancelled; the registered owner of the vehicle obtained the
comprehensive policy and he has sold the vehicle to respondent
No.1 so, respondent No.3 was not the owner of the vehicle at
the time of accident; the Insurance Company has not raised
any contention before the Tribunal by filing objection; the copy
of the notice also not produced before the Court; the charge
sheet has been filed against the offending vehicle which is not
challenged; the policy holds good for the period from
27.12.2018 to 26.12.2019 and the date of accident was
13.12.2019. So as on the date of accident, the policy was in
force; since the policy holds good, and the owner of the
offending vehicle also not denied the accident and he has not
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
received a notice from the Insurance Company, now the
Insurance Company cannot absolve from its liability to pay the
compensation. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
14. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials
available on record. The points that would arise for
consideration by this Court are as follows:
(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in saddling
the liability on respondent No.2/Insurance
Company to pay the compensation?
(ii) What order?
15. Points framed by this Court for consideration are
answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : In the affirmative.
Point No.(ii): As per the final order, for the
following:
16. Regarding Point No.(i): On 13.12.2019 at about
08:30 p.m., one Mr.Hajisab Multani was proceeding in his
motorcycle from Hukkeri to Nagarmunnoli Village and when he
reached near Ammanagi Cross, Hukkeri-Chikkodi Road, the
driver of the offending vehicle came by driving the vehicle in a
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
high speed and rash and negligent manner and suddenly took
his vehicle towards the right side without giving any signal and
thereby lost his control over the vehicle and dashed to the
motorcycle of the deceased, which was coming from the
opposite direction. Due to the said accident, Hajisab
Multani/the rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries
and died on the spot. The petitioners who are the legal
representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal against respondents claiming compensation.
17. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending
vehicle, who has purchased the same from respondent No.3
and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
18. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the
accident. T he petitioners have produced the FIR, complaint,
spot panchanama/sketch, inquest mahazar, postmortem report,
IMV report and charge sheet which marked as Exs.P.1 to P.7.
The police have investigated the matter and filed a charge
sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 134 read with Section 187
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
of the Motor Vehicles Act. The oral and documentary evidence
establishes that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained
by him in the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle, owned by the respondent No.1
as on the date of accident. The Tribunal, on appreciating the
evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.31,54,992/- to the legal
representatives of the deceased and directed respondent
No.2/insurer of the offending vehicle to deposit the entire
compensation amount along with accrued interest within two
months from the date of award.
19. The main contention of the Insurance Company is
that the offending vehicle was not covered with insurance as on
the date of accident.
20. On perusal of the document marked as Ex.R.2/the
policy, it indicates that the period of insurance is from 13.09
hours on 27.12.2018 to 23.59 hours of 26.12.2019. The date of
accident is 13.12.2019. So, the offending vehicle was covered
with insurance as on the date of accident.
21. It is the contention of the Insurance Company that
respondent No.3 had obtained the policy by issuing a cheque
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
which was dishonored, so, the policy was cancelled.
Respondent No.3 stoutly denied the issuance of cheque for the
payment of premium. According to him, he has paid the
premium by cash and not issued a cheque. R.W.1 who is the
Legal Claims Manager working under respondent
No.2/Insurance Company filed affidavit stating that respondent
had issued a cheque bearing No.380453 for Rs.32,464/- dated
27.12.2018 drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, payable to
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited towards the
premium for insuring the offending vehicle and when the
cheque has been presented for encashment, it was returned as
per memo issued by the bank dated 02.01.2019 with an
endorsement “funds insufficient”.
22. RW1 also stated that they cancelled the policy from
its inceptions with due notice to respondent No.1 and the
concerned RTO; as on the date of accident i.e., on 13.12.2019,
the offending vehicle was not at all insured with the Insurance
Company. RW1 produced and got marked the cheque,
endorsement issued by the bank, copy of the notice and
intimation given to the RTO as Ex.R.2 to 11. According to the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
Insurance Company, they have issued a notice of cancellation
of the policy, but she deposed that she do not know whether
the said notice has been served on the owner or not. According
to her the cheque was issued by respondent No.3. But the
evidence of RW.1 contradicts. She deposed that, she has no
documents to show that the policy has been issued on receipt
of the cheque towards premium. There is no material evidence
placed before the Court to show that the insurance policy has
been issued and the premium has been paid by way of cheque
and the said cheque has been dishonored.
23. According to RW.3, who is respondent No.3 i.e., the
previous owner of the offending vehicle. He deposed that he
has obtained the policy by paying cash. According to him, he
has not issued a cheque as per Ex.R.8. He also disputed the
signature in Ex.R.8.
24. In this case, when the petitioner claimed
compensation, it is the duty of the Insurance Company to prove
that as on the date of accident, the vehicle is not covered with
policy and the owner of the offending vehicle violated the terms
and conditions of the policy.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
25. Ex.R.17 is the Form No.30 report of transfer of
ownership of the vehicle. Respondent No.3 sold the vehicle to
respondent No.1, the vehicle covered with policy insurance.
Exs.R.21 and R.22 are the notice issued by respondent Nos.2
and 3 and to the RTO regarding the cancellation of the policy.
Whether the policy has been issued before realization of the
cheque is in question.
26. By looking into the documents, it cannot be
believed that the Insurance Company had issued the policy or
renewed the policy before realization of the cheque. It is the
definite contention of respondent No.3 that he has paid cash
towards the premium. According to the respondent/Insurance
Company, in view of dishonor of cheque, the policy becomes
void-ab-initio.
It is up to the Insurance Company to prove that
the policy was cancelled and intimation was delivered to the
insured.
27. In this case, no material evidence placed before the
Court to show that Ex.R.21 has been served on respondent
No.3. It is pertinent to note that the Insurance Company taken
up a contention that Ex.R.2 is not a policy, on the other hand it
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
is a cover note. But contrary to this, RW.1 in the cross
examination admitted that Ex.R.2 is a package policy and it is
not a cover note. She also admitted that Ex.R.9 the
endorsement issued by the bank does not indicate that cheque
belong to respondent No.3. She also admitted that Ex.P.10
prepared from their office. It is pertinent to note that, RW.1
clearly admitted that they have no documents to show that
they have cancelled the policy and notice issued which has
been served on the owner of the vehicle. Further she admitted
that, she has no document to show that cheque has been
issued towards the premium. Respondent No.1 stoutly denied
that she had issued a cheque as per Ex.R.8. Though
Respondent No.2 examined and produced the document, the
evidence it indicates that the cheque is belong to Karnataka
Bank Limited, Tiptur Branch, which has been issued by the
Proprietor of the Firm by name S.S. Bikes. It is not the defence
of the Insurance Company that respondent No.3 is the
proprietor of the S.S.Bikes and he issued a cheque maintained
by him. So, it is very difficult to believe that the cheque was
issued by respondent No. 3 towards premium.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
28. Apart from that, it is pertinent to note that the
cheque was presented for collection at Tiptur Branch and policy
issued from Mangalore Branch and insured is residing at
Hassan. These facts created a doubt in the mind of the Court
regarding the defence taken by the Insurance Company.
29. On appreciation of the evidence, this Court is of the
opinion that the respondent No.3, who was the owner of the
offending vehicle obtained a policy as per Ex.R.2. There is no
substantial material evidence to prove that insurance policy has
been cancelled and notice has been served on respondent No.3,
and notice issued to RTO intimating regarding the termination
of the policy.
30. Another contention taken by the Insurance
Company is that the driver of the offending vehicle has no valid
and effective driving license at the time of accident. Further
contended that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation.
31. The charge sheet does not indicate that the driver
of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving license
at the time of accident.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
32. On going through the entire evidence, it is very
clear that the Insurance Company somehow trying to avoid the
liability to comply the order of the Tribunal. There is no
evidence produced by the Insurance Company to show that the
cheque was dishonored and the Insurance Company has
initiated the legal proceedings against respondent No.3.
33. Respondent No.3 sold the vehicle to respondent
No.1 and the vehicle was registered in the name of respondent
No.1. As on the date of accident, respondent No.1 was the
owner of the offending vehicle. As respondent No.2 failed to
establish its contention that as on the date of accident, the
offending vehicle was not covered with the insurance, and
failed to establish that either owner of the offending vehicle i.e.
respondent No.1 or the policy holder i.e., respondent No.3
violated the terms and conditions of the policy, this Court is of
the opinion that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company
cannot escape from the liability in paying the compensation to
the petitioners. The Tribunal is justified in directing the
Insurance Company to deposit the compensation.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18254
MFA No. 100849 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020046782025
34. A ccordingly, point No.(i) is answered in the
affirmative.
35. Regarding Point No.(ii): In view of the findings
on point No.(i), this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company
dismissed
is with costs.
ii) The impugned judgment and award passed
confirmed
by the Tribunal is hereby .
iii) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with
records forthwith.
iv) In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
applications, if any, does not survive for
consideration. Accordingly, the same are
disposed of.
(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE
SMM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026