- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38273 MFA No. 2318 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2318 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT H.K.SUNITHA W/O SUNDARESH @ SANDRESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS HOUSE WIFE 2. AMOGH D.S., S/O LATE SUNDARESH @ SANDRESH AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS STUDENT 3. SATHISH DATT D.S., S/O SUNDARESH @ SANDRESH AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS STUDENT, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THEIR N G M MOTHER THE APPLLANT NO.1 4. H.M.BHADREGOWDA S/O LATE MULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT DONAGUDIGE VILLAGE, ALDUR HOBLI CHIKAMAGALUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. YASHWANTH M. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR G.P.DINESH S/O G.T.PUTTEGOWDA Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38273 MFA No. 2318 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS DRIVER OF JEEP NO. KA-18-Z-0130 R/O TORANAMAVU VILLAGE VASTARE HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 101 2. SMT.RAMAMMA W/O H.M.BHADREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R C OWNER OF JEEP NO. KA-18 - Z-0130 R/O DONAGUDIGE VILLAGE ALDUR HOBLI CHIKAMAGALUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CRESCENT COURT THOGARIHANKAL CIRCLE, K.M.ROAD CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3 R1 & R2- SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.08.2020, PASSED IN MVC NO.156/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38273 MFA No. 2318 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition in MVC.No.156/2019 dated 20.08.2020 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, MACT, Chikkamagaluru, the appellants/claimants are before this Court. 2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of the deceased who is the son of respondent No.2. The facts of the case are that on 08.04.2018, the deceased was traveling in the Jeep belonging to respondent No.2, who is none other than the mother of the deceased, driven by respondent No.1 at about 8:00 p.m. on Aldur B.Kere road. At that time, the driver of the Goods Auto came from opposite direction and the driver of the Jeep drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and dashed to the Goods Auto. Due to the accident, Jeep toppled in a road side ditch and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to the hospital and he died on 09.04.2016. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38273 MFA No. 2318 of 2021 3. The Tribunal had held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is that on going through all the documentary evidence, it reveals that after the incident, H.S.Girish filed complaint before the Police and after investigating the matter, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against driver of the vehicle for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. All these documentary evidence are not challenged by Insurance Company in any other forum. In his chief-examination affidavit, Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company who is examined as RW.1 has stated that the vehicle in question was driven by deceased at the material point of time. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the charge sheet is filed against driver of the vehicle and they have not challenged the same. The Tribunal had held that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle and she is the mother of the deceased. As the deceased is the son of the owner of the vehicle, he is not a third party and the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38273 MFA No. 2318 of 2021 Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that he is not a party to the contract of insurance. 5. The age of the deceased is 49 years. The finding of the Tribunal that they are all members of the family and he is not a third party cannot be sustained. There is no dispute about the fact that it is a package policy and the inmates of the car are covered by insurance. When there is a finding that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep, the deceased being an occupant of the Jeep, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order impugned and as far as the liability of the insurance company and the package policy is concerned, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 6. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed and the order passed in MVC.No.156/2019 dated 20.08.2020 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, MACT, Chikkamagaluru, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38273 MFA No. 2318 of 2021 i. Without further notice, the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 28.10.2025. ii. As far as the compensation is concerned, both the parties shall adduce necessary evidence and based on the evidence, the Tribunal shall fix the compensation. iii. The Tribunal shall decide the entitlement of the claimants within a period of five months from 28.10.2025. iv. The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay. v. No Costs. vi. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1