THE MANAGER M/S L AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., vs SRI BASAVARAJ S/O GURAPPA VADAR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17996
MFA No. 102724 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020101792022



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102724 OF 2022 (MV-)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGER M/S L AND T
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
L AND T HOUSE, N. M. MARG,
BALLARD ESTATE,
MUMBAI-400001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. GURAPPA VADDAR,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
R/O. SIDDARAMESHWAR NAGAR,
NEAR NARGUND POLICE STATION,
TQ: NARGUND,
DIST: GADAG 582207.

2. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O GURAPPA VADDAR
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
R/O. SIDDARAMESHWAR NAGAR,
NEAR NARGUND, POLICE STATION,
TQ: NARGUND,
DIST: GADAG-582207.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.S. SURYAVANSHI AND
SRI.S.R. SURYAVANSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE
ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES,
AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.02.2022 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, DHARWAD, IN MVC
NO.704/2019, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17996
MFA No. 102724 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020101792022


THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
25.09.2026 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
05.02.2022 passed in MVC No.704/2019 by the IV
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T.,
1
Dharwad , respondent No.2/Insurance Company 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 03.06.2019,
the petitioner and two other persons were traveling in an
2
Indica Vista car bearing registration No.KA-28/M-8432
from Nargund towards Hubballi. When they reached an
under-construction bridge near Hubballi, the driver drove
the car in a high speed and dashed against the bridge wall
and caused accident. Due to the said impact, the

1
For short, ‘the Tribunal’
2
For short, ‘the car’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17996
MFA No. 102724 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020101792022


petitioner sustained grievous injuries and car also
damaged. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner
was shifted to the hospital for treatment.

4. The petitioner further contended that prior to
the accident, he was hale and healthy and was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, the
petitioner lost his earning capacity, and suffered pain and
mental agony. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a claim
petition claiming compensation before the Tribunal.

5. After filing of the petition, notices have been
issued. Though notice issued on respondent No.1, he
remained absent and hence, placed an ex-parte.
Respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed
objections denying the averments of the petition.

6. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company
contended that the petition is not maintainable and liable
to be dismissed. It admitted the issuance of the insurance
policy for the car, but disputed its liability under the terms
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17996
MFA No. 102724 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020101792022


and conditions of the policy. It denied the occurrence of
the accident and alleged that the insured vehicle was
falsely implicated. It was further contended that the driver
of the car did not possess a valid driving license. It denied
the age, income, injuries sustained and treatment taken
by the petitioner. The petitioner, being the owner of the
car, cannot claim compensation against himself.
Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition as not
maintainable.

7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner got himself
examined as PW2 and got marked the documents at
Exs.P9 to Ex.P11. On behalf of respondent No.2, one
witness has been examined as RW1 and got marked policy
copy as Ex.R1.

8. On hearing the arguments, the Tribunal allowed
the claim petition of the petitioner by awarding
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till
realization. The Tribunal further held that the respondent
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17996
MFA No. 102724 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020101792022


No.2/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation
with accrued interest and directed to deposit the same
within a period of 30 days from the date of the award.

9. Dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed this
appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
argued that the impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is opposed to the law and facts; the petitioner
is not a third party to the contract so, he cannot maintain
a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
3
1988 or under Section 163-A of the MV Act; the Tribunal
has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, though
there is no liability on the Insurance Company to pay
compensation; the Tribunal erred in holding that the
premium of Rs.250/- has been paid and the policy issued
is a package policy, hence, the owner entitled for
compensation; Rs.250/- has been paid by the insurer to

3
For short, ‘MV Act’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17996
MFA No. 102724 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020101792022


cover the risk of unnamed passengers other than the
insured, paid driver or cleaner as per Indian Motor Tariff-
16; as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the
compensation payable either under IMT-15 or IMT-16 is
subject to the terms and conditions of the contract of
insurance.

11. Learned counsel further argued that in case of
death, loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or loss of one
limb and sight of one eye and permanent total
disablement from injuries other than mentioned, the
insurance company is liable to pay 100% sum assured
under the policy and even the loss of one limb or sight of
one eye, the insurance company is liable to pay 50% of
the sum assured under the policy. In the present case, the
petitioner has not lost either of any limb or sight of an
eye, but the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- without considering the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy and the Tribunal erred in
awarding interest at the rate of 8% per annum, which is
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17996
MFA No. 102724 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020101792022


not permissible under law. Accordingly, prayed for allowing
the appeal.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
argued that the Tribunal has rightly awarded a
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner which
does not call for any interference. Accordingly, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.

13. 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 fixing
the liability on respondent No.2 to pay
compensation?

(ii) What order?

14. 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:
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17996
MFA No. 102724 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020101792022



15. Regarding Point No.(i): The accident
occurred on 03.06.2019 when the petitioner along with
other inmates were traveling in a car from Nargund side to
Hubballi, when the car reached near under bridge
construction Hubballi, the driver of the car drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
bridge wall. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates
of the car sustained injuries and petitioner was shifted to
KIMS Hospital, wherein he had taken treatment. The
petitioner himself was driving the vehicle and met with an
accident. The charge sheet has been filed against the
petitioner. Ex.R.1 is the policy, which stands in the name
of the petitioner i.e., Basavaraj S/o Gurappa Vaddar. The
petitioner is the owner of the car. According to the
Insurance Company, the owner cannot claim
compensation against insurer as he is not a third party to
the insured vehicle.

16. On perusal of Ex.R.1-policy, the liability of the
premium has been towards third party liability and P.A.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17996
MFA No. 102724 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020101792022


cover for owner, driver, to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-,
P.A. cover for unnamed persons, Rs.1,00,000/- each for 5
persons (IMT-16). The car having package policy. It reads
as under:
“LIMITATIONS AS TO USE : The Policy covers
use of the vehicle for any purpose other than: a) Hire
or Reward b) Carriage of goods (other than samples or
personal luggage) c) Organized racing d) Pace making
e) Speed testing f) Reliability Trials g) Any purpose in
connection with Motor Trade. Persons or Class of
Persons entitled to drive : Any person including the
insured, provided that a person driving holds an
effective driving license at the time of the accident and
is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a
license. Provided also that the person holding an
effective learner’s license may also drive the vehicle
and that such a person satisfies the requirements of
Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Limits of liability 1.Under Section II-1 (i) of the
policy – Death of or bodily injury – Such amount as is
necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Under Section II-1(ii) of the
policy-Damage to Third Party Property-₹7,50,000/- 3.
P.A. Cover under Section III for Owner–Driver(CSI):
₹15,00,000/-. Terms, Conditions and Exclusions :
As per the Indian Motor Tariff. A personal copy of the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17996
MFA No. 102724 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020101792022


same it available free of cost on request and the same
is also available at our website.”


17. Ex.R1 clearly indicates that there is a P.A. cover
for owner, driver and premium for P.A. cover for unnamed
to 5 persons. Petitioner has sustained lacerated wound of
size 5x1cm over the lateral aspect of the right eyelid,
swelling over right eye temporal version, tenderness right
ulterior aspect of right leg and he has sustained grievous
injury. Petitioner has sustained grievous injury, but he has
not chosen to examine the doctor to assess the disability.
So the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of
₹1,00,000/- based on the policy conditions.

18. This Court did not find any illegality with the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
There is no merit in the appeal.

19. Accordingly, point No.1 is in the affirmative .

20. Regarding point No.(ii) : In view of the
finding on point No.(i), this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17996
MFA No. 102724 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020101792022


ORDER

i) The appeal filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed .

ii) The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is confirmed .

iii) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with
records.

iv) In view of disposal of the appeal, the
pending interlocutory applications, if
any, stand disposed of.




(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE

SMM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026