- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1878 MFA No. 201440 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201440 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: NAVEEN S/O BASSANNA SINGE, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: NIL, THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND MOTHER SMT. LAXMI W/O BASANNA SINGE, AGE: 52 YEARS OCC: HOUEHOLD, R/O PLOT NO.100, DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, CIB COLONY, KALABURAGI-585 103. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.M. KINIKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BASSANNA S/O HANMANTH SINGE, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: PROP: PISK MVSS LTD., MADAN HIPPARGA, R/O MADAN HIPPARGA, TALUKA ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI, NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 6, SAIBABA LAYOUT, NEAR DR. P.S. RAO HOSPITAL, SHAKTI NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585 103, (OWNER OF MOTOROCYCLE NO.KA-32/S-7389). 2. THE DIVISIFONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., N.G. COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, OPP: MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, KALABURAGI-585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADEESHKUMAR A. BHUJANG, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. UDAY P. HONGUNTIKAR, ADV. FOR R2) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1878 MFA No. 201440 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T. AT KALABURAGI IN MVC NO. 24/2017 MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE THE APPEAL AND BE ALLOWED AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN THE CLAIM PETITION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of judgment dated 07.06.2019 in MVC No.24/2017 by the II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-Kalaburagi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was riding a motorcycle bearing No.KA-32/S-7389 owned by - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1878 MFA No. 201440 of 2019 respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 and while proceeding to collect the bills of the respondent No.1, near Ghatge layout, the two wheeler skidded and the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. The petitioner was immediately taken to the hospital for treatment and a case was registered in Traffic P.S.Crime No.42/2016. The petitioner claims that he was working as an office assistant in the proprietary firm owned by the respondent No.1 i.e. PISK MVSS Ltd., Madan Hipparga. Contending that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, he having suffered injuries, sought appropriate compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, ‘the M.V.Act’). 4. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by respondent No.2-Insurance Company contending that, the accident was at the fault of the petitioner himself and he being the tortfeasor, a petition either under Section 166 or 163 (A) of the M.V.Act is not maintainable. Even the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1878 MFA No. 201440 of 2019 respondent No.1 had also denied the claim of the petitioner. 5. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P20 were marked in evidence and two witnesses were examined on his behalf as PWs.2 and 3. The copy of the policy was marked at Ex.R1. 6. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner himself being the tortfeasor, cannot take shelter under any of the statutory provisions of the M.V.Act. In this regard, it relied on several judgments of the Apex Court and this Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was the rider of the motorcycle and even though a charge-sheet was filed against him by the police, negligence is not a ground to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1878 MFA No. 201440 of 2019 deny the compensation. Therefore, he submits that the provisions of 163A of the M.V.Act, laid down that irrespective of the negligence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. In this regard, he relies on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature Madras in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Krishnan1 to contend that, the expression ‘owner-cum- driver’ cannot be split up to narrow down the enforceability of the policy to the driver only if he is also owner of the vehicle. In fact, this judgment relied by the petitioner was considered by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. 8. In catena of decisions, this Court has held that, the statutory liability contemplated under the provisions of the M.V.Act, emanate from the fact that the driver or the rider is the tortfeasor and as such, he is liable to pay the compensation for the tort committed by him. The owner of the vehicle being vicariously liable, is to compensate the 1 2014 ACJ 1862 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1878 MFA No. 201440 of 2019 victim out of vicarious liability. The liability of the Insurance Company would arise from the contractual relationship with the owner of the vehicle. In other words, the claimant has to be a third party to maintain a claim petition under the provisions of 163A or 166 of the M.V.Act. 9. The petitioner herein being tortfeasor cannot invoke the provisions of the M.V.Act to seek compensation. His right to claim the compensation obviously flows from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, even the petition filed under Section 163A M.V.Act, is not maintainable in law. In this regard, the judgment of the this Court in the case of Appaji (since deceased) and another vs. M.Krishna and another2 lays down the principles of law. The said judgment has been quoted by the Tribunal in its judgment. 2 2004 ACJ 1289 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1878 MFA No. 201440 of 2019 10. Having come to the conclusion that the appeal is bereft of merits, it is necessary to note that if the contractual terms and conditions of the policy permit the petitioner to claim any personal accident cover that was available under the policy, he is at liberty to do so before the appropriate forum. So also, the petitioner would have liberty to claim the compensation under the appropriate provisions, if, he was an employee of the respondent No.1. 11. For the above reasons, the appeal is bereft of merits and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 55 CT: AK