- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3586 MFA No. 102273 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102273 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., GUNJ CIRCLE, RAICHUR, HOSPETH, NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SHREENIVAS, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, YELAMANCHALI COMPLEX, STATION ROAD, HOSPETH-583201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NARASAMMA W/O. LATE J. TIMMAPPA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: MALIABAD, NOW R/O: GINIGERA, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL. 2. TAYANNA S/O. J. THIMMAPPA, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NOT MENTIONED, NOW AT GINIGERA, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 2(A) SMT. LAXSHMI W/O. TAYANNA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2(B) JAMALAMMA D/O. TAYANNA, AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 2(C) HULIGEMMA D/O. TAYANNA, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 2(D) HULIGEPPA S/O. TAYANNA, AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3586 MFA No. 102273 of 2014 2(E) RAMESH S/O. TAYANNA, AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, RESPONDENTS NO.2(A) TO 2(E) ARE RESIDENTS OF GINIGERI, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG. 3. TIMALAMMA D/O. LATE J. THIMMAPPA AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD AFFAIRS, R/O: MALIABAD, NOW R/O: GINIGERA, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL. 4. VEERESH S/O. HUSSAINAPPA NAYAK, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: MALIABAD, TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR. 5. SYED AMEER HUSSAIN S/O. SYED HUSSAIN C/O: YAKUB, AGE: NOT MENTIONED, OCC: NOT MENTIONED, R/O: MALIABAD, TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GODE NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 AND R2A TO R2E; NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED; SRI MRUTYUNJAY S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, KOPPAL IN MVC NO.534 OF 2007 DATED 03.07.2014 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND GRANT SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3586 MFA No. 102273 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 03.07.2014, passed in MVC No.534/2007, by the Court of District Judge and MACT, Koppal (for short, Tribunal’), questioning the liability fastened on it on the ground that the claimant is occupant in the Jeep and insurance policy is “Liability Only Policy”, hence, the risk of inmates in the car is not covered. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.08.2007 at 7.00 a.m., respondents No.4 and 5, who were arraigned as respondents No.1 and 2 before the Tribunal, requested the deceased Timmappa to go to Gunjalli for respondent No.1 function in a Jeep bearing registration No.AP-21/4986 (for short, ‘Jeep’). The respondent No.1 drove the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to tractor. Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Later, deceased was shifted to hospital at Raichur with help of others, but during treatment, deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3586 MFA No. 102273 of 2014 3. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,21,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization by fastening liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants by indemnifying the owner of Jeep. 4. Admittedly, as per Ex.D1 – Insurance Policy, the nature of policy is “Liability Only Policy”. Admittedly the deceased is inmate in the jeep. There is no additional/extra premium paid towards covering the risk of inmates in the Jeep. Since, the insurance policy is “Liability Only Policy”, unless extra premium is paid towards covering risk of inmates in the Jeep, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner and to pay compensation to the claimants. The issue is purely covered by this Court in the case of DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd., AND OTHERS VS. SHAMARAYA AND OTHERS1. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed error in fastening liability on the appellant/Insurance Company. Therefore, the owner of Jeep alone is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence, the 1 MANU/KA/4690/2020 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3586 MFA No. 102273 of 2014 liability fastened on the Insurance Company is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 5. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed. b) The judgment and award dated 03.07.2014, passed in MVC No.534/2007, by the Court of District Judge and MACT, Koppal, is modified in holding that the owner of offending vehicle shall pay compensation to the claimants. The liability fastened on the Insurance Company is hereby set aside. c) The amount in deposit made by the appellant/Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. d) No order as to cost. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1