Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Company Limited vs Suresh S/O Appanna Karoshi on 16 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4108
MFA No. 103733 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103733 OF 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH BELAGAVI,
2ND FLOOR, DHAMNEKAR ARCADE,
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI.
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BELAGAVI,
INSURER OF THE GOODS VEHICLE,
NO.KA-23/A-3757,
POLICY NO.472504/31/2013/2739,
VALIDITY 15.11.2012 TO 18.10.2013
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER,
AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE SUMANGALA COMPLEX,
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GN RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
CHANDRASHEKAR
AND:
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
1. SRI SURESH S/O APPANNA KAROSHI,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.17 09:55:54
+0000
R/O MALLAPUR VILLAGE (GHATAPRABHA),
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SRI SUMANTH ISHWAR GADAKARI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KUMBAR GALLI, AT/POST: NANDGAD,
TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2-SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4108
MFA No. 103733 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.10.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.612/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT HUKKERI,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,39,873/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION & ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 03.10.2015, passed in MVC no.612/2014 by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Hukkeri (for short, 'Tribunal'), this appeal was filed.
2. Sri GN Raichur, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by insurer against award in claim petition filed by claimant - respondent no.1, stating that respondent no.2 - Sumanth Ishwar Gadakari was owner of vehicle no.KA-23/A-3757, purchased by claimant on 30.12.2012. That on 10.01.2013, his name was entered in RC Book. But, on same day at 04:30 p.m. while driving it on Ghataprabha - Hukkeri road, its driver applied brake suddenly, lost control and it dashed against a lorry. In said accident, it sustained damages. Claimant got it repaired from SC Motors, Belagavi and filed claim -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4108 MFA No. 103733 of 2015 HC-KAR petition for vehicle damages, under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act', for short) .
3. On appearance, insurer filed objections and contested claim petition on all grounds. Based on same, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself has PW-1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P9. Respondent did not lead evidence.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held insurer liable to pay compensation of ₹1,39,873/- with interest. Aggrieved, present appeal was filed on two grounds firstly, insurance policy was issued in name of Sumanth Gadakari and though vehicle was transferred to claimant herein on 30.12.2012 as per advance sale receipt and entry of name claimant's name on 10.01.2013 in RC book, when vehicle met with accident on same day, insurance policy stood in name of earlier owner and purchaser had failed to intimate purchase of vehicle to insurer and have insurance policy revalidated in his name for remaining period. Failure had led to lapsing of policy and insurer cannot be held liable. And secondly on ground that claim petition by successor of owner of vehicle for -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4108 MFA No. 103733 of 2015 HC-KAR damages from insurer of vehicle cannot be maintained under Section 166 of MV Act.
5. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment, award and record.
6. From above and since only insurer is in appeal on liability, point that would require consideration is:
1) Whether claim petition by owner of vehicle from its insurer would be maintainable under Section 166 of MV Act?
2) Whether Tribunal was justified in holding insurer liable without attornment of insurance policy in name of claimant - purchaser?
7. Since both points are interlinked, they are taken up for consideration, together.
8. At outset, there is no dispute about fact that claimant is purchaser of vehicle from earlier owner - respondent no.2 and appellant was insurer of vehicle who had issued policy in name of respondent no.2.
9. Claim petition is for vehicle damages against insurer of vehicle purchased by claimant. As such, claim petition is not -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4108 MFA No. 103733 of 2015 HC-KAR by a third party but by RC owner. Defense taken by insurer is failure of purchaser/seller to intimate insurer about alienation and for transfer of policy. Perusal of award reveals date of advance sale receipt as 30.12.2012 and accident occurred on 10.01.2013 at 04.30 p.m. There is no pleading or material placed to establish intimation to insurer either by claimant/ purchaser or respondent no.2 - seller about sale of vehicle and for transfer of insurance coverage in name of purchaser, which would have led to assumption of risk by insurer. It is not case of claimant that there was failure by insurer to extend coverage despite intimation.
10. That apart, admittedly, claim petition herein is by RC owner against insurer and not as a third party injured. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors., reported in 2009 (2) SCC 417, has held, claim petitions by owner of vehicle from insurer of own vehicle would not be maintainable under Section 166 of MV Act. Points for consideration are answered accordingly. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4108 MFA No. 103733 of 2015 HC-KAR
11. Consequently following:
ORDER i. Appeal is allowed, impugned judgment and award dated 03.10.2015, passed in MVC no.612/2014 by Tribunal is set-aside and claim petition is dismissed.
ii. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be refunded to appellant - insurer.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CLK,GRD, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17