- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21165 MFA No. 6922 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6922 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. JYOTHIMANI MARY REGINA W/O LATE A WALTER SUGUMAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO. 271 2. S SURESH STEPHEN S/O LATE A.WALTER SUGUMAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 271, GROUND FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, KORAMANAGALA, BANGALORE-560 095. AS PER PASS PORT ADDRESS SRIVILLIPUTHUR, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ICICI COMPLEX, NEXT TO CENTRAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MARGATH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21165 MFA No. 6922 of 2014 2. DINESH BHAT V, NO.70, JAKKASANDRA, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 034 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 16/12/2014, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS NOT NECESSARY) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1379/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 02.08.2014 passed by XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in MVC.No.1379/2013 (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.01.2012 around 9.40 p.m., deceased, A. Walter Sugumar was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21165 MFA No. 6922 of 2014 crossing the road and at that time, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-01-V-7393 by its rider. As a result of which, A. Walter Sugumar sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment in St.John's Medical College and hospital, he succumbed to injuries on 05.11.2012. The deceased was 61 years old. He was a retired Indian Bank Officer. The claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant No.2 is the son and they were depending upon the earnings of the deceased. With these reasons, it is prayed to award compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 4. Respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the said offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 denied the contentions of the claim petition and further contended that rider of the motor cycle was under the influence of liquor/intoxication and a case was registered against him under the provision of Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act and 304 of IPC. Therefore, respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21165 MFA No. 6922 of 2014 5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings, framed necessary issues. 6. The claimants to prove their case examined one witness and marked Ex.P1 to P25. Respondent No.1 examined RW1 and marked Ex.R1. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal awarded following amount of compensation: Compensation under different Heads Amount (in Rs.) Loss of income/dependency 12,42,000 Medical expenses 18,149 Loss of consortium (payable to the petitioner No.1) 25,000 Loss of love and affection 25,000 Transportation dead body and funeral expenses 25,000 Total Rs.13,35,149 7. The Tribunal held that the rider was under the influence of alcohol and as per the alcometre reading alcohol consumption was 117 mg/100 ml. As per the Motor Vehicle Act, it is an offence. Hence, exonerated the insurer from - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21165 MFA No. 6922 of 2014 paying the compensation and directed respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation. 8. Heard the arguments of both sides. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments only in respect of liability of respondent No.1 to pay the compensation though he had taken other grounds in the appeal memo. 10. The fact of the accident is not in dispute. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination is: i. Whether in case of drunk and drive, the insurer can be exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation? 11. Undisputedly, as per the charge sheet produced by the claimants, which is marked at Ex.P7, case was registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 185 of MV Act, 1988, in addition to Section 279 and 304 of IPC. The charge sheet also reveals that as per the alcometer reading, he was under the influence of alcohol to an extent of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21165 MFA No. 6922 of 2014 117mg/100 ml. Respondent No.2 did not examine the rider of the vehicle or disputed the said charge sheet. 12. Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 reads as under: "185. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs- Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle,- a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyzer or in any other test including a laboratory test, or b) is under this influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle. shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of ten thousand rupees, or with both and for a second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine of fifteen thousand rupees, or with both". 13. Records reveals that, the rider of the vehicle was under influence of alcohol to an extent of 117mg/100ml. It is also pertinent to note that, it may be violation of an implied contract between insurer and insured as far as third party liability is concerned, the insurer cannot disown its liability to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21165 MFA No. 6922 of 2014 pay the compensation. Section 147 and 149 of MV Act do not state that on that ground insurer can deny its liability to pay the compensation. Therefore, under such circumstances, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation and it is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, since the owner has handed over the vehicle to a person who was riding the vehicle under the influence of alcohol, contrary to provision of 185 of the MV Act. To that extent, the awarded amount requires modification. 14. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that insurance company has not appealed against the impugned judgment and award since it was exonerated from its liability by the Tribunal. If the said finding is modified by fastening liability on the insurer to pay and recover from the owner, then exercising jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal may be modified and it may be reduced to 6% per annum. In the normal circumstances, this court would not have interfered about rate of interest since awarding of the interest is at the discretion of the Tribunal. However, looking at the peculiar facts and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21165 MFA No. 6922 of 2014 circumstances of the present case, the rate of interest is modified. 15. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 02.08.2014 passed by XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in MVC.No.1379/2013 is modified. iii. The amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid by respondent No.1-insurer with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization and it is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in an appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21165 MFA No. 6922 of 2014 iv. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v. The apportionment, release and deposit of the amount remains intact. vi. Send back trial Court records along with copy of the judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29