Karnataka High CourtInsurance LawTransport, Maritime, and Aviation Law

Owner-Driver Hurt In Bridge-Wall Crash Keeps ₹1 Lakh Policy Award, Karnataka HC Upholds Insurer’s Liability

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

Owner-Driver Hurt In Bridge-Wall Crash Keeps ₹1 Lakh Policy Award, Karnataka HC Upholds Insurer’s Liability. THE MANAGER M/S L AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., vs SRI BASAVARAJ S/O GURAPPA VADAR. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing liability on the insurer to pay compensation to the claimant under the policy

The court held

The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, dismissed the insurer’s appeal, and confirmed the Tribunal’s award of ₹1,00,000 with interest at 8% per annum.

It also directed

Any amount in deposit was directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

01Facts

On 3 June 2019, the claimant, who owned and was driving an insured car, was injured when it struck a bridge wall. The charge sheet was filed against him.

pp. 3–5, 8

He claimed compensation, and the Tribunal awarded him ₹1,00,000 with interest at 8% per annum, holding the insurer liable.

pp. 3–5, 8

The insurer appealed, contending that the owner could not claim as a third party and that liability was governed by the policy terms.

pp. 3–5, 8

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing liability on the insurer to pay compensation to the claimant under the policy

p. 7

03Law Applied

The Court determined the insurer’s liability by reference to the insurance policy and the Indian Motor Tariff. The policy provided personal-accident cover of ₹15,00,000 for the owner-driver and cover of ₹1,00,000 each for five unnamed persons under IMT-16; the policy terms and conditions governed the extent of the insurer’s liability.

pp. 8–10

The insurer invoked Sections 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but the judgment did not set out or apply a separate statutory test under those provisions.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173Section 166Section 163

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the claimant was the owner and driver of the car and that the policy was issued in his name. It examined the policy and found both owner-driver personal-accident cover and cover for unnamed persons.

pp. 8–10

Although the claimant had sustained injuries, he had not examined a doctor to assess disability. The Court nevertheless held that, under the policy conditions, he was entitled to ₹1,00,000, and found no illegality in the Tribunal’s award.

pp. 8–10

05Holding

The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, dismissed the insurer’s appeal, and confirmed the Tribunal’s award of ₹1,00,000 with interest at 8% per annum.

pp. 10–11

Any amount in deposit was directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

pp. 10–11
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

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

Karnataka High Court · November 03, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment