[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sri Umar Farooque Alias Farooq Haroon ... on 20 February, 2026
-1-
CRP No.100155 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
®
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100155 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001,
POLICY ISSUING BRANCH TILAKWADI,
MICRO OFFICE NO.106, 1ST FLOOR,
KRISH PRIDE, OPPOSITE CONGRESS WELL,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590006,
NOW R/BY THE ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. UMAR FAROOQUE @ FAROOQ HAROON SHAPURI
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. TAILORING (PRESENT NIL),
R/O. H.NO.15, NEW GANDHI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590016,
Digitally signed PRESENT R/O. C/O. MEHBOOBI NANDUKAR,
by
MOHANKUMAR H.NO. 1067, 10TH CROSS, SUNERI GALLI,
B SHELAR SHAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.
Location: High
Court of ...RESPONDENTS
Karnataka, (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
Dharwad Bench
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.2374/2023 DATED
21.06.2025 ON I.A.NO.I IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.
THIS CRP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS
ON 04.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
-2-
CRP No.100155 of 2025
CAV ORDER
The present CRP is filed seeking to set aside the order
dated 21.06.2025 on I.A. No.1 in MVC No.2374/2023, on the file
of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. The petitioner herein-Insurance Company is the
respondent before the Tribunal and respondent No.1 herein is
the petitioner/claimant No.1 before the Tribunal.
3. For convenience of reference, the parties are referred
as arrayed before this Court.
4. The facts leading to filing of this petition are that:-
On 08.04.2023, respondent No.1/claimant allegedly
sustained severe injuries when he lost control of his motorcycle,
abruptly applied brakes, skidded, and fell on the road along with
his wife. Based on this incident, he filed a claim petition seeking
compensation against the petitioner-Insurance company
asserting that he had obtained a package motor insurance policy
with an additional premium covering a Personal Accident (PA)
risk of Rs.15 lakh for himself as owner-driver. Pursuant thereto,
the petitioner filed I.A. No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 read with
-3-
CRP No.100155 of 2025
Section 151 of the CPC, before the Tribunal seeking rejection of
the claim petition as barred by law.
5. The insurance policy placed on record expressly
stipulates that claims arising under the Personal Accident (PA)
cover are not adjudicable by the Tribunal, as such disputes
constitute a private contractual matter between the insured and
insurer, to be resolved independently and not before the
Tribunal. Despite this clear contractual bar and legal position, the
Tribunal erroneously rejected the petitioner's application in I.A.
No.1 without proper appreciation on its merits.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance
company would submit that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to
entertain the claim since the Tribunal, constituted under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the MV Act' for short), is empowered
only to adjudicate third-party claims, whereas the claimant is the
registered owner-cum-rider of the very vehicle and therefore not
a "third party". His claim under the Personal Accident (PA) cover
is purely contractual and not maintainable before the Tribunal
under Sections 166 or 163-A of the MV Act, but lies only before a
Civil Court or Consumer Forum.
-4-
CRP No.100155 of 2025
7. Further, the Insurance Company, relying on Rule 253
of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, contends that the
Tribunal is vested with powers of a Civil Court, including the
inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC and by necessary
implication, the power to reject a claim at the threshold under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC when the claim is ex facie barred
by law. Rule 253(1) is illustrative and not exhaustive, while Rule
253(2) confers wide discretion to exercise all powers of the Civil
Court necessary for discharge of its functions. The failure of the
Tribunal to exercise this jurisdiction, despite a clear legal bar
apparent from the pleadings, amounts to a jurisdictional error
warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India which mandate rejection of legally barred or
illusory claims at the threshold to prevent abuse of process.
8. It is also argued that an owner or insured of a vehicle
is not a "third party" under the MV Act and therefore cannot
maintain a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act before the
Tribunal for his own injuries. The Apex Court clarified that the
owner-cum-driver is not a third party and that the limited
direction to pay under personal accident cover was an exercise of
-5-
CRP No.100155 of 2025
its plenary powers, not recognition of jurisdiction of the Tribunal
over contractual PA claims.
9. It is argued that in the present case, the
respondent/claimant has improperly invoked Section 166 of the
MV Act by relying on Personal Accident (PA) cover, which is
purely contractual and governed by Regulation 15 of the IRDAI
(Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2017,
requiring claims to be processed as per policy procedure, not
before the Tribunal. Since Section 166 of the MV Act is confined
to statutory third-party claims and the respondent/claimant is
the tortfeasor as well as the claimant, the petition is barred by
law, discloses no triable cause of action before the Tribunal, and
ought to have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the
CPC.
10. In support of the contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner-Insurance Company has placed on the following
judgments:-
• Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal
reported in 2017 (13) SCC 174;
• Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemant Kumar Jalan reported
in (2022) 12 SCC 641
-6-
CRP No.100155 of 2025
• Ramisetty Venkatanna & Ors. v. Nasyam Jamal
Saheb & Ors reported in 2023(159)ALR 232
• Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi and
Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 4228
• Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kempamani & Ors.
reported in 2004 ACJ 808
• Sangeetha and Ors. v. Krishna Chari and Ors,
reported in 2020 ACJ 61
• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut
reported in (2007) 3 SCC 700
• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashalata Bhowmik
reported in (2018) 9 SCC 801
11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/claimant contended that the claim petition is
maintainable before the Tribunal, not as a third-party statutory
claim under Section 166 of the MV Act, but for the limited
purpose of enforcing the Personal Accident (PA) cover forming
part of the admitted package policy for which additional premium
was duly paid by the claimant. It is submitted that once the
insurer has accepted premium towards PA cover for the owner-
cum-driver, a corresponding obligation to indemnify within the
terms and limits of the policy arises, and the Tribunal is
-7-
CRP No.100155 of 2025
competent to examine such entitlement incidentally while dealing
with a motor accident claim.
12. It is further contended that the respondent is not
seeking tortious damages against the insurer, but is only seeking
assessment and award of compensation strictly restricted to the
contractual PA coverage under the policy, and therefore the
claim cannot be thrown out at the threshold as being barred by
law. It is thus urged that the question is not one of jurisdictional
bar, but of extent of liability, which requires adjudication on
evidence regarding the policy terms, nature of injuries, and
coverage limits. Hence, rejection of application under Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC is wholly unwarranted.
13. In support of the contentions, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/claimant has placed reliance on the
following judgments:-
o National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Ashalata Bhowmik
and others reported in (2018) 9 SCC 801;
8. This Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma
Saha [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha, (2007) 9
SCC 263 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 443] , was considering a
similar case where the owner himself was driving the vehicle
which due to his negligence dashed with a tree on the
roadside as a result of which he died. The Court held that
-8-
CRP No.100155 of 2025
the claim petition filed by his legal representatives was not
maintainable. It was held thus: (SCC p. 265, paras 10-11)
"10. The deceased was the owner of the vehicle.
For the reasons stated in the claim petition or
otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the
accident. The accident did not involve motor vehicle
other than the one which he was driving. The question
which arises for consideration is that the deceased
himself being negligent, the claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be
maintainable.
11. Liability of the insurer Company is to the
extent of indemnification of the insured against the
respondent or an injured person, a third person or in
respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured
cannot be fastened with any liability under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the
insurer being liable to indemnify the insured, therefore,
does not arise."
9. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in
directing the appellant insurer to pay the compensation
determined by the Tribunal. Since the indemnification
extended to personal accident of the deceased is limited to
Rs.2,00,000 under the contract of insurance, the
respondents are entitled for the said amount towards
compensation. Hence, the appellant is directed to deposit
the said sum of Rs.2,00,000 with interest @ 9 per cent p.a.
from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit
with the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today.
10. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms without
any order as to costs.
o The IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company v.
Dhani Devi and others by order dated 15.03.2011 in
CMPMO No.437/2010, passed by the high Court of
Himachal Pradesh, Shimla;
-9-
CRP No.100155 of 2025
o The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Mohan
s/o. Maruti Andhare by order dated 21.06.2021
passed in MFA No.24391/2013 c/w. MFA
No.24676/2013 (MV);
o Sangeetha and others v. Krishna Chari and others
reported in 2020 ACJ 61.
14. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials on record.
15. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions
and the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the
impugned order declining rejection of the claim petition at the
threshold does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting
interference under Section 115 of the CPC or Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The claim petition, on a plain reading, is
founded on the existence of a valid package policy with an
additional premium towards Personal Accident cover for the
owner-cum-driver. Whether such cover is contractual or
statutory, and the extent to which the claimant is entitled to
indemnification there under, are matters which require
adjudication on evidence and cannot be said to be ex facie
barred by law so as to attract Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
- 10 -
CRP No.100155 of 2025
The power of rejection at the threshold is drastic and can be
exercised only when the bar of law is apparent on the face of the
pleadings, which is not the position in the present case.
16. This Court is persuaded by the ratio in Ashalata
Bhowmik's case (supra) relied upon by the respondent, wherein
the Apex Court, while holding that an owner-cum-driver is not a
"third party" for the purpose of Section 166 of the MV Act,
nevertheless recognised the insurer's liability to satisfy a claim to
the limited extent of the Personal Accident cover under the
contract of insurance. Similarly, it was held that claim under
Section 166 of the MV Act may not lie against the insurer for the
insured's own negligence; the contractual personal accident
benefit remains enforceable. These authorities indicate that the
Tribunal is not denuded of jurisdiction to examine a claim
relatable to PA cover; rather, it is required to mould relief in
accordance with the terms of the policy. Other decisions relied
upon by the counsel for the respondent/claimant also support
the view that questions touching the scope of PA cover and
entitlement there under are matters for adjudication and not for
summary rejection.
- 11 -
CRP No.100155 of 2025
17. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified
in holding that the issue of maintainability and the extent of
liability under the Personal Accident cover cannot be decided
without trial. The petitioner-insurer will have full opportunity to
contest liability, prove policy terms, and urge all available
defences before the Tribunal. Interference at this stage would
amount to foreclosing a bona fide claim without adjudication on
merits. Accordingly, no material irregularity, or jurisdictional
infirmity is made out in the impugned order.
18. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER
The present petition is dismissed, leaving all contentions of both parties open to be urged before the Tribunal in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP