- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14976 MFA No. 101832 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101832 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, OPPOSITE RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BUS STAND ROAD, GOKAK, REP: BY DULY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY, THE REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, OPP. SBI, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUMAR. AKASH S/O. BASAYYA MATHAD, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR R/BY HIS M/G FATHER BASAYYA S/O. SIDRAMAYYA MATHAD, AGE: 36 YEARS, GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14976 MFA No. 101832 of 2022 OCC: DRIVER AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. HONAKUPPI VILLAGE, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591218. 2. VEERABHADRAYYA S/O. IRAPPA MATHAPATI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MELAVANKI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591218. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE M.V.C. NO.692/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL GOKAK AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND/OR FURTHER RELIEF’S, AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14976 MFA No. 101832 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Santosh S. Hattikatagi, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Though notice was served upon respondent No.2, respondent No.2 did not choose to contest the matter. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gokak (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) in M.V.C. No.692/2017 dated 14.01.2022. 3. The insurer against whom liability is fastened, is before this Court with a defence the policy issued does not cover the risk of respondent No.1/claimant. 4. Arguing the matter, Sri.M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the insured that is respondent No.2 herein obtained a two wheeler liability policy only. The said policy does not cover the risk of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14976 MFA No. 101832 of 2022 respondent No.1/claimant who was a pillion. Though such a defence was taken and was established before the Tribunal, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the same and thereby fastened liability against the appellant and therefore the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks to exonerate the appellant from liability. 5. The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sri.Santosh S.Hattikatagi is that even if the appellant being the insurer is not liable to pay compensation, respondent No.2 who is the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to answer the claim. By stating thus learned counsel seeks to pass necessary orders to that effect fastening liability against the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. It is not in dispute that on 14.03.2017 while respondent No.1/claimant was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-49/H-9067 and while he was present over the motorcycle as a pillion, the rider of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14976 MFA No. 101832 of 2022 motorcycle lost control over the vehicle due to which Respondent No.1/claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Also it is not in dispute that the policy obtained by respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle is a two wheeler liability policy only. 7. With a submission that the policy obtained by the owner does not cover the risk of the pillion and thereby the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in the case between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahadevappa and others1 wherein the Court at para 11 to 15 of the judgment held as under: “11. The only point that arises for consideration of this court is: Whether the policy of insurance covers the risk of the deceased as pillion rider of the motor cycle or whether the insurance company can be exonerated from its liability? 1 2024 ACJ 1143 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14976 MFA No. 101832 of 2022 12. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the copy of the insurance policy made available at Exh.R1. On perusal of the same, it is pertinent to note that the said insurance policy is not a package policy, it is only "two-wheelers liability only policy - Zone B". The total premium paid under the policy is Rs.350. This has been explained in the schedule of premium as basic TP cover of Rs.300 and PA for owner-driver (GR 36-A) at Rs. 50; total Rs. 350. There is no insurance cover to pillion rider on the motor cycle as no premium was paid in the policy. 13. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pattabhi Ramaiah, 2009 ACJ 1587 (Karnataka), to the effect that the standard form of contract clearly indicates the intention of insurer to cover the risk of a pillion rider under package policy. Here in this case the policy obtained by respondent No.4 is only a liability policy and not a package policy. 14. The Tribunal has also relied upon the judgment in Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. B.M. Niranjan, 2008 ACJ 554 (Karnataka), to the effect that package policy cannot be said to be limited to claims of owner or rider of motor cycle and the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. In this case also, the matter was dealt with in connection with package policy, whereas, Exh. R1 is only an Act policy, hence, said principles has no bearing on the facts of this case. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14976 MFA No. 101832 of 2022 15. In Mahadev Pandurang Patil's case (supra), while dealing with third party with reference to passenger of a car, Division Bench of this Court held that in order to cover the risk of an occupant of a car or inmate of a vehicle or passenger in a private car additional premium has to be paid. If no additional premium is paid, the risk is not covered. In this context, if the insurance policy is read together, the premium has been paid in respect of personal accident cover to the rider-owner and also third party liability. The policy did not point out any risk coverage to the pillion rider or any payment of additional premium. As laid down in Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co.Ltd. v. B.M. Niranjan, 2008 ACJ 554 (Karnataka), the pillion rider on a motor cycle cannot be treated as a third party and to cover the risk of the pillion rider policy must be a package policy. Exh. R1 is not a package policy, but it is a limited liability policy or it can be called as an Act policy. Hence, the Tribunal has erred in recording its finding that the insurance policy is a package policy. In view of the wrong assumption, liability is fastened against the appellant. When no premium was paid to cover the risk of the pillion rider, it is not proper to direct the insurer to indemnify the insured. Therefore, above point is answered accordingly. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed” 8. The proposition of law discussed by this Court in the aforementioned decision applies to the facts and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14976 MFA No. 101832 of 2022 circumstances of the present case as well. The proposition of law as laid down in the aforementioned decision is not disputed and no contrary judgments are produced before this Court. As rightly contented by learned counsel for the appellant, only because the carrying capacity of the motorcycle is mentioned as two in the insurance policy, liability cannot be fastened against the insurance company holding that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the loss sustained by the pillion rider as well. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the insurance company that is the appellant herein is required to be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The appellant is exonerated from liability to pay compensation to respondent No.1/claimant. Thus, respondent No.2 who is the owner of the offending vehicle - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14976 MFA No. 101832 of 2022 alone is liable to pay compensation to respondent No.1/claimant to the extent granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gokak through orders in M.V.C. No.692/2017 dated 14.01.2022. (iii) Amount if any in deposit, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal immediately. (iv) Concerned tribunal to refund the amount deposited by the appellant to the appellant on filing an application to that effect. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM,RH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36