Karnataka High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Shri. Rama @ Ramachandra S/O Nagesh ... on 4 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336
MFA No. 101552 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101552 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
EXTENSION COUNTER, NO.198, PARTAVATI NIVAS,
KHANAPUR ROAD, BELAGAVI,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD,
BELAGAVI-590001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI RAMA @ RAMACHANDRA S/O. NAGESH HURUDE,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. MASON, R/O. H.NO. 257,
BAHER GALLI, KANGRALI (B.K.),
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590021.
2. SHRI RAHUL S/O. MARUTI PATIL,
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. LAITHMACHINE WORK,
R/O. AT RANAKUNDE, POST: SANTIBASTAWAD,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590023.
SHELAR (OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE KA-22/ED-4157)
Date: 2025.09.10
12:31:06 +0530 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK BARIGIDAD, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.T. BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 16/12/2016 PASSED
IN MVC NO. 2161/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIM TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.
1,44,900/-, AT THE RATE OF 9%, PER ANNUM, FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT AND OF RS. 10,000/- WITHOUT
INTEREST, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336
MFA No. 101552 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the Judgment and award dated 16.12.2016
passed in MVC No.2161/2015 by the learned XI Additional
District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi
(for short 'the Tribunal').
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to,
based on their rankings, before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal
are as follows:
On 21.12.2012, at about 5:30 PM, the petitioner was
returning on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/ED-8277
from Bhagyanagar to Kangrali (B.K.) village of Belagavi at a
moderate speed. When he reached the near the spot of the
accident, the owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle bearing
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336
HC-KAR
No.KA-22/ED-4157 came from the opposite direction, in
rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner's
motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained a grievous
injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, prays to allow
the claim petition.
4. The owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle bearing
No.KA-22/ED-4157 filed a statement of objections
contending that the rider of the motorcycle possessed a
valid and effective driving license as of the date of the
accident, and that the vehicle was insured with the
Insurance Company and therefore, the Insurance Company
is liable to pay the compensation claimed by the petitioner.
Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the rider
cum owner of the offending vehicle.
5. The Insurance Company filed its statement of
objections denying the averments made in the claim
petition. It was contended that the rider of the offending
Vehicle ridden the same being intoxicated and the charge
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336
HC-KAR
sheet is filed against the intoxicated Owner cum Rider.
Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation claimed by the petitioner, as there was a
violation of the policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss
the claim petition against the Insurance Company.
6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the
parties, framed the relevant issues.
7. To substantiate his case, the petitioner examined
himself as PW-1, the Doctor was examined as PW-2 and
marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to P13. Conversely, on
behalf of the Insurance Company, its Official was examined
as RW-1, and marked 2 documents as Ex.R1 and R2.
8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and
documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part
vide judgment dated 16.12.2016 and awarded a
compensation of Rs.1,44,900/- with interest at the rate of
9% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization, and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336
HC-KAR
directed the Insurance Company to deposit the
compensation amount.
9. Aggrieved by the Judgment and award, passed
by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed this
Miscellaneous First Appeal.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submits that the rider of the offending vehicle was riding
the motorcycle under intoxicated state. Thus, there is a
violation of policy conditions. Hence, Insurance Company is
not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the
petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the
appeal.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the
liability on the owner and the Insurance Company jointly
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336
HC-KAR
and severally. The tribunal was justified in saddling the
liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, on these
grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
13. Perused the records, and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
14. The point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is regarding the liability.
Regarding Liability:
15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of
accident. A charge sheet is filed against the rider of the
motorcycle, marked as Ex.P6. The Tribunal, while
considering Ex.P6, has rightly held that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of
the offending motorcycle.
16. In so far as the rider of the offending motorcycle
was under intoxicated state is concerned, merely, because
the rider was under intoxicated state, is not a ground for
the Insurance Company to escape from the liability to pay
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336
HC-KAR
the compensation. There is a contract between the owner of
the offending motorcycle and the Insurance Company to
pay the compensation amount. Drunken driving is not a
ground for the Insurance Company to escape from the
liability, and to place the liability on the rider of the
offending vehicle.
17. The Tribunal relying upon the Judgment of this
Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Smt.Dyamavva
W/o Yalgurdappa Goudar and another reported in
(2013) 1 AIR Kar R 401, was justified in fastening the
liability on the Insurance Company. At the cost of
repetition, the drunken driving cannot be a ground to the
Insurance Company to escape from the liability, and to
place the liability on the rider of the offending motorcycle.
Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned
Judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336
HC-KAR
18. Accordingly, I concur with the findings recorded
by the Tribunal. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The Judgment and award dated
16.12.2016 in MVC No.2161/2015 passed
by the learned XI Addl. District and
Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT,
Belagavi, is hereby confirmed.
(iii) The amount in deposit, and trial court
records, if any, be transmitted to the
Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
RHR/-
CT:PA
