- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32579-DB MFA No. 5556 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5556 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI R. NARASIMHAREDDY S/O. M.N. RAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.82/2 KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA NEAR SARJAPURA RING ROAD BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SURESH S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. OFFICE AT KRISHI BHAVAN 6TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE OFFICE AT GROUND FLOOR NO.31, TBR TOWER 1ST CROSS NEW MISSION ROAD NEAR BENGALURU STOCK EXCHANGE BENGALURU-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1, AND SRI A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2) * * * Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32579-DB MFA No. 5556 of 2018 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 9-6-2017 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.1859 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 9-6-2017 passed in M.V.C. No.1859 of 2013 on the file of the learned Small Causes and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 2-5-2012, Sri R. Narasimha Reddy was traveling in his car, bearing Registration No.KA-51 Z-3770, along with his father and sister, from his native, Vadanakallu Village, to Bengaluru via Penugonda. When they reached near K.N.R. Constructions at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32579-DB MFA No. 5556 of 2018 Aruru Village, due to high speed, the vehicle suddenly toppled. As a result, his father died on the spot, his sister succumbed to the injuries while shifting to the Hospital and he sustained grievous injuries. Due to the accident, his car was badly damaged and therefore, it was shifted to Advaith Motors for repair. After repair, the damage was estimated to the tune of Rs.2,76,422/-. Out of which, respondent No.1 is stated to have paid a sum of Rs.1,74,668/- to Advaith Motors and rest of the amount was paid by the claimant. Hence, he filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 4. Heard Sri Suresh S., learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, Sri H.C. Vrushabhendraiah, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has contended that the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant on the ground that the Insurance Policy is not covering owner's risk and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as per contract. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32579-DB MFA No. 5556 of 2018 Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain such claim petition. 6. Learned counsel would contend that the Insurance Policy issued in favour of the claimant by respondent No.1- United India Insurance Company Limited is a 'Package Policy' and by respondent No.2-Bajaj Alliance General Insurance is a 'Comprehensive Policy' and hence, under both Policies, personal accident cover for owner-driver is included. Premium is compulsorily recovered to cover risk to owner-cum-driver. Apart from this, premium is also recovered towards third-party risk. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have expressly undertook the risk of death or bodily injury to any person including a person carried on the vehicle. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to cover the risk of the claimant. 7. Sri H.C. Vrushabhendraiah, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 have contended that the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not maintainable. If the claimant had personal accident claim, he ought to have approached respondent No.1. Under such - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32579-DB MFA No. 5556 of 2018 circumstances, respondent No.1 would deal with the matter and would grant appropriate compensation to the claimant. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further submitted that as per the Policy conditions, the claimant is entitled for Rs.2.00 lakh under the personal accident cover, as mentioned in the Policy. However, it is available for the owner/driver only in case of death, loss of one or both limbs or permanent disability. He has produced a copy of the 'Package Policy' (Ex.P11) wherein, it is stated thus: PERSONAL ACCIDENT COVER FOR OWNER-DRIVER Subject otherwise to the terms, exceptions, conditions and limitations of this Policy, the Company undertakes to pay compensation as per the following scale for bodily injury/death sustained by the owner-driver of the vehicle in direct connection with the vehicle insured or whilst mounting into/dismounting from or traveling in the insured vehicle as a co-driver, caused by violent accidental external and visible means which independent of any other cause shall within six calendar months of such injury result in: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32579-DB MFA No. 5556 of 2018 Nature of injury Scale of compensation (i) Death 100% (ii) Loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or one limb and sight of one eye 100% (iii) Loss of one limb or sight of one eye 50% (iv) Permanent total disablement from injuries other than named above 100% 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material including the original record of the Tribunal. 10. In the instant case, the claimant claimed compensation for both personal injury and damages to the vehicle. Respondent No.1 clearly admitted that they have issued Package Policy as per Ex.P11, which covers personal accident for owner-cum-driver. As per the Policy conditions, the claimant is entitled for Rs.2.00 lakh under the personal accident cover, as mentioned in the Policy. However, it is available for the owner/driver only in case of death, loss of one or both limbs or permanent disability. 11. The claimant has suffered grievous injuries and hence, it does not fall within the category mentioned above. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32579-DB MFA No. 5556 of 2018 12. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents-Insurance Companies submit that in order to cover the risk of the owner, if the claimant had paid additional premium on the Insurance Policy, then respondent No.1 would be liable to pay the compensation for which the claimant should approach the Insurance Company. If the claimant approaches the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company will examine the claim and would pay the compensation, if eligible in terms of the Policy. Hence, reserving such a liberty to the claimant to approach respondent No.1-United India Insurance Company Limited for claiming compensation, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32