Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 3 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Santosh Kumar (individual claimant); Respondent No.1 – M/S. Sandhu Road Lines Pvt. Ltd (owner of offending lorry); Respondent No.2 – Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd (insurer of the lorry). The appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 against the judgment and award dated 28‑11‑2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore (MVC No.1211/2019).
  • Accident Facts: On 30‑01‑2019 at ~2.30 pm, the claimant was a fare‑paying passenger in KSRTC Bus Reg.No. KA‑19‑F‑2889 travelling Mangalore‑Uppinangadi. A lorry Reg.No. NL‑01‑D‑3590, driven negligently and on the wrong side, collided with the bus near Shri Ramchandra PU College, Perne, on NH‑75. The claimant sustained grievous injuries – fracture of right forearm, right wrist, and scaphoid – and was hospitalized at Government Hospital, Puttur for two days (30‑01‑2019 to 31‑01‑2019). He paid an attendant Rs 500 per day.
  • Initial Claim: Claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Rs 5,00,000 compensation. The Tribunal, after hearing, awarded global compensation of Rs 1,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from filing date, holding only Respondent No.1 liable; the claim against the insurer was dismissed.
  • Evidence:
  • Petitioner’s documents: Ex.P.1‑P.10, including wound certificate (Ex.P.5) and discharge summary (Ex.P.7).
  • Insurer’s documents: Ex.R.1‑R.8, including RTI responses, driving licence extracts, and notice of non‑compliance with policy terms (Ex.R.2).
  • Discrepancy on driver’s licence: Tribunal record (Ex.P.3) identified driver as Kishan Kumar Ray, licence WB‑0120110880066 valid till 16‑09‑2020. Insurer’s evidence (Ex.R.3‑R.8) showed the same licence number belonged to Arindam Lahiri and was invalid for transport vehicles, indicating a fake licence.
  • Legal Arguments:
  • Appellant argued injuries were grievous and compensation should be enhanced; also contended insurer should be liable.
  • Insurer argued the Tribunal correctly dismissed its liability and that the owner alone should pay.
  • Court observed lack of expert medical opinion to quantify disability, affirming the Tribunal’s compensation amount.
  • Court noted that despite the owner’s non‑appearance (ex‑parte), the insurer cannot escape statutory liability; under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurer must first satisfy third‑party award and then recover from the owner.
  • Cited Supreme Court precedents: Pappu & Others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba (2018 3 SCC 208), National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh (2004 3 SCC 297), and New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Yellavva (2020 ACJ 2560).

Final Outcome

  • Appeal allowed in part; the Tribunal’s judgment is modified only to the extent of directing the insurer to pay the awarded compensation.
  • The claimant is entitled to the original global compensation of Rs 1,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the filing date.
  • Respondent No.2 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance) must deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks of filing the petition and thereafter recover the same from Respondent No.1 (Sandhu Road Lines Pvt. Ltd).
  • No order as to costs.
  • Registry directed to return trial court records to the Tribunal with a certified copy of this judgment.

Topics: Motor Accident Compensation, Insurance Liability