[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sri. Tirupathi S/O H. Ramanna ... on 15 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5498
MFA No. 100097 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100097 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SUJATA COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
P.B. ROAD, HUBBALLI,
REP. BY DULY CONSTITUTE AUTHORITY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. TIRUPATHI S/O H. RAMANNA HUNASIMARAD,
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND COOLIE WORK,
R/O: HIREHADAGALI, TAL: HOVVINAHADAGALI,
NOW HANUMAPUR VILLAGE, TAL. RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581102.
2. SRI. GONEPPA S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA TALAWAR,
AGEA: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
R/O: 4TH WARD, TALAWAR ONI,
Digitally signed by
HOLAGUNDI, TAL: HOOVINAHADAGALI,
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
DIST: BALLARI-583101.
Date: 2026.04.16 10:22:34
+0530
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE SERVED TO R2;
V/O. DATED 15.04.2026, THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2019 IS RECALLED
IN RESPECT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.10.2017, IN MVC NO.1748/2015,
ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT,
RANEBENNUR, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND GRANTED
SUCH OTHER AND/OR FURTHER RELIEF'S, AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT
TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5498
MFA No. 100097 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
The insurer of motorcycle bearing No.KA-35-EA-9150, who
is Respondent No.2 in MVC No.1748/2015, has maintained this
appeal against the judgment and award dated 21.10.2017
passed therein by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Additional M.A.C.T., Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal').
2. The claimant namely Sri Tirupathi maintained the
petition in MVC No.1748/2015 under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.11,39,000/- from the
owner and insurer of motorcycle bearing No.KA-35-EA-9150, for
the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident occurred on
20.01.2015.
3. The case papers reveal that the accident in question
occurred between two vehicles i.e., motorcycles bearing No.KA-
35-EA-774 and KA-35-EA-9150. The claimant was a pillion rider
in motorcycle bearing No.KA-35-EA-774. It is contended that the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5498
HC-KAR
accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving
on the part of rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-35-EA-9150.
After contest, the Tribunal held that the negligence is
attributable to the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-35-EA-
9150 and allowed the claim petition in part. The Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.1,89,758/- together with interest at
the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till its
realization. Further, it directed the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved by
the said judgment and award, the insurer has come up with this
appeal.
4. Sri M. K. Soudagar, learned Counsel for Insurer
vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error
in fastening the liability of satisfying the award on the insurer in
spite of sufficient materials on record to show that at the time of
the accident, the motorcycle in question was being driven with
two pillion riders and thereby there was a clear breach of terms
of the policy. As such, he prayed to allow the appeal and
exonerate the insurer from the liability of satisfying the award.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5498
HC-KAR
5. The insurer has maintained this appeal on only one
ground questioning correctness of fastening the liability of
satisfying the award. As it is a question of law, this Court
proceeded to decide the appeal by hearing the insurer.
6. As already pointed out, the case of the claimant is
that on 20.01.2015 when he was going in a motorcycle bearing
No.KA-35-EA-774 as a pillion rider, at about 10.30 p.m., near
Boodanoor Village, he met with an accident due to actionable
negligence on the part of the rider of another motorcycle bearing
No.KA-35-EA-9150 and sustained injuries.
7. In their objection, the insurer stated that they were
unaware of the accident and even denied coverage of insurance
to the said vehicle. However, RW-1, Sri Sanganagouda, the
Administrative Officer of the insurer, during his evidence tried to
dispute their liability on the ground that three persons were
traveling in the motorcycle bearing No.KA-35-EA-9150 at the
relevant point of time and thereby the insured had violated the
policy conditions. Thus, he impliedly admitted that the offending
vehicle was insured with them at the time of the accident. Added
to the above, he produced a copy of Certificate of Insurance cum
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5498
HC-KAR
Policy Schedule at Ex.R1. The said document indicates that the
owner of Hero HF Deluxe (new vehicle) namely Sri Talvar
Goneppa had insured his two wheeler with the insurer herein,
which was in force from 13.10.2014 to 12.10.2015. In the case
on hand, the claimant was traveling in TVS XL motorcycle
bearing No.KA-35-Y-774. Thereby it becomes clear that the
claimant was not traveling in the offending vehicle and he was a
third party. As such, it is not open for the insurer to dispute its
liability of satisfying the award in the case.
8. Even otherwise, Section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act
deals with the grounds on which the insurer can, in its own right,
dispute or resist a claim. The insurer can avoid its liability under
this provision, subject to proving the statutory defences available
to them. It is to be noted that in the present case the insurer has
not raised any other defence than a contention of triple riding.
Undisputedly, it is not a statutory defence available to the
insurer under Section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act. In view of
the same, this Court holds that there is no substance in the
contention raised by the insurer in seeking for their exoneration
from the liability of satisfying the award.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5498
HC-KAR
9. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Consequently, the judgment and award dated
21.10.2017 passed in MVC No.1748/2015 by
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT, Ranebennur is confirmed.
(iii) The amount deposited before this Court, if any,
and the trial Court record, be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(iv) Draw an award accordingly.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
YAN,
CT-CMU,
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 26
