Karnataka HC Holds Father Liable, Denies Insurer's Liability in Wife's Fatal Accident Case

The Karnataka High Court ruled that the insurance company was not liable because the man was driving without a valid licence, upholding an order directing him to pay ₹25 lakh in compensation to his two children after his rash and negligent riding allegedly caused the death of their mother.

In their appeal, siblings Pavan and Pavithra H. M. sought enhanced compensation and requested the court to direct the insurer to pay the compensation first and then recover the amount from their father.

In an order dated July 24, Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar dismissed their appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) ruling that absolved Reliance General Insurance Company of liability and held their father, Manjunatha, liable.

HC Upholds Tribunal, Insurer Not Liable

The court upheld the Tribunal's ruling, noting that the records clearly showed that Manjunatha did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It further observed that the "pay and recover" principle applies when the victim is a third party and there has been a breach of the insurance policy conditions.

“In the case at hand, rash and negligent driving is alleged against the father of the claimants and husband of the deceased. The liability to pay the compensation is saddled on respondent No. 1, who is the rider and owner of the motorcycle. Since respondent No. 1 is the father of the claimants, the order of pay and recovery cannot be applied,” the court said.

What lawyers argued

Advocate Sathisha T, appearing for the siblings, argued that there had been a breach of the insurance policy because Manjunatha did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

He contended that the Tribunal should have applied the "pay and recover" principle, under which the insurer first pays the compensation and then recovers the amount from the insured in cases involving a breach of policy conditions.

Counsel Defends Tribunal's Insurance Order

The insurer's counsel, H. C. Betsur, opposed the plea, arguing that the principle did not apply because the owner and rider of the motorcycle was the deceased's husband and the claimants' father. He submitted that the Tribunal had rightly held that the insurer could not be directed to pay the compensation first and recover it later, as the owner-driver himself was liable.

The case arose from an accident on September 28, 2018, when Manjunatha was riding a motorcycle with his wife, Manjula, as the pillion rider. She died after the motorcycle met with an accident, allegedly due to his rash and negligent riding.

Following the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet accusing him of driving without a valid licence and causing his wife's death through rash and negligent riding.