- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100031 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23651 OF 2013 IN MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100031/2017 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SANNAPPA BASAPPA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 1ST KESARATTI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL, (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-37/K-5667) …CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI. ANJANEYA M, ADV) AND: 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGAER, A.R ARICEDA COMPLEX, C.G. HOSPITAL ROAD, DAVANGERE. 2. SRI. PRAKASH S/O VEERABADRAGOUDA @ VEERABADRAYYA PATIL, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HANUMANAHALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUJATHA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBBALLI (INSURER OF VEHICLE BEARING REGN NO.KA-37/K-5667) POLICY NO.6040002/31/07/6700002571) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R MANE, ADV FOR R1 & R3, SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADV FOR R2) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.23651/2013 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.485/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, IN MFA NO.23651/2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, A.M. ARCADE, C.G. HOSPITAL ROAD, DAVANAGERE, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR THIRD PARTY HUB OFFICE, SRINATH COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI - 580 029, REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.R MANE, ADV) AND: 1. PRAKASH S/O VEERABADRAGOUDA @ VEERABADRAYYA PATIL, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANUMANAHALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SANNAPPA S/O. BASAPPA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KESARATTI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL, (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-37/K-5667) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V HIREMATH, ADV FOR R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.04.2013, PASSED IN MVC. NO.485/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 RS.1,79,640/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS MFA CROB AND MFA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THERIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. Respondent No.3 before the Tribunal, i.e., the insurer of the motor-cycle bearing registration No.KA.27/R- 1945, aggrieved by the Judgment and award dated 12.04.2013 passed in MVC No.485/2010 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), filed an appeal in MFA No.23651/2013, and respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, i.e., the owner of the said motor- cycle filed a Cross-objection in MFA Crob. No.100031/2017. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, and the cross-objection are as follows: *Page No.3 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 18.11.2025 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 05.12.2009. At about 08.30 p.m. on 05.12.2009, he was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.27/R.1945 along with one Nagappa Malagi on the Harihar– Shivamogga Road. When they reached near Belludi Cross, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.27/K.5667 came from the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the petitioner's motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, in the treatment of which, he incurred huge medical expenses, and suffered a loss of income. Hence, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the motor- cycle bearing registration No.KA.27/K.5667, filed a statement of objections denying the averments made - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 in the claim petition, and contended that the rider- cum-owner of the vehicle involved, who is the petitioner, was not holding a valid driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1. 4. Respondent No.2, who is the insurer of the motor- cycle bearing registration No.KA.27/K-5667, filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and also denied that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with respondent No.2, and contended that the insurance policy was not in force as of the date of accident. It is contended that the owner of motor cycle KA-27/K-5667 is not Respondent No.1 and the rider was not possessing the valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Respondent No.2. 5. Respondent No.3, who is the insurer of the motor- cycle bearing registration No.KA.27/R.1945, which - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 was driven by the petitioner, filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and admits that Respondent No.3 has issued an insurance to the petitioner, and hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition as against respondent No.3. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioner, to substantiate his claim petition averments, examined himself as PW1, examined one witness as PW2, and marked 10 documents as Exhibits P1 to P10. 8. In rebuttal, the respondents examined two witnesses as RWs 1 and 2, and marked 4 documents as Exhibits R1 and R4. 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, and dismissed the claim petition against - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 respondent No.2. It was ordered that the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of ₹1,79,640/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization of award amount from respondent Nos. 1 and 3, at the ratio of 50% each. It was also held that respondent Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation at the ratio of 50% each and directed respondent Nos.1 and 3 to deposit the amount of 50% along with the accrued interest thereon within 30 days from the date of the order. 10. As stated above, respondent No.3 / the insurer of the motor-cycle bearing registration No.KA.27/R-1945, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.485/2010, preferred an appeal in MFA No.23651/2013, and respondent No.1 / the owner of the said vehicle filed a Cross Objection in Crob. No.100031/2017. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.3, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal. He submits that Petitioner, is the owner of the vehicle insured with them, and the holder of the insurance policy is not entitled to claim any compensation from the insurance company, as he could not be considered as a third party about the contract of an insurance. The Tribunal has lost sight on the said fact. 13. He submits that the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal in fastening the liability on Respondent No.3 is perverse, illegal and arbitrary. Hence on these grounds, he prays to allow their appeal, and dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 14. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that there is a delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint, and the petitioner assigned no reason for the delay caused in lodging the complaint. The motorcycle of respondent No.1 was not involved in the accident, and the petitioner has falsely implicated the said vehicle in collusion with the police. The Tribunal totally ignored the said fact. He also submits that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.1. 15. He further submits that from the perusal of records, which clearly disclose that the petitioner has a fall from his own motorcycle, and the Tribunal did not properly consider this aspect, and has erroneously passed the impugned judgment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the cross objection. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 bearing registration No.KA.27/K.5667, and the Tribunal, considering the evidence placed on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment, and awarded the compensation of ₹1,79,640/-. 17. He also submits that, the motorcycle was insured with respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, being the insurer, is liable to indemnify petitioner and there is no error in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal and the cross objection. 18. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 19. The points, that arise for consideration, are as follows: (i) Whether respondent No.3 prove that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening 50% liability on respondent No.3 ? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 (ii) Whether respondent No.1 prove that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on respondent No.1 at the ratio 50%? (iii) What order or award? POINT Nos.1 and 2: 20. These points are interlinked together, and they are taken for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 21. There is no dispute that the petitioner met with an accident, and sustained injuries, and a criminal case was registered against the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/K-5667. To prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding, by the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.27/K.5667, the petitioner has produced a certified copy of the charge-sheet marked as Exhibit P8. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 22. Based on the material on record, and proper appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal was justified in answering issue No.1 in the affirmative. 23. Insofar as the liability fastened on respondent No.1 is concerned, respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA.27/K.5667. The vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.KA.27/R.1945 was insured with respondent No.3. The petitioner was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.27/R.1945, which is owned by the petitioner himself. The petitioner being a party to the contract seeks to determine, whether the insurance company is liable for the injuries sustained by the owner. 24. It is settled law that the liability of the insurer arises only when there is a liability on the insured regarding the risk of third parties. In other words, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in particular, Chapters X and XI go to establish that the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 policy of insurance is required to cover the risk of death or injury to any person of a third party. Therefore, there is no requirement under the Act for the insurance company to cover the risk of death or fatal injury to the owner of the vehicle. 25. This is clear from the perusal of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows: “ 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.—(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which— (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)— (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily 1 [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle]or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not be required— (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee— (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:— (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons. ” 26. It is therefore very clear from the above provision that the insurance company is not required to cover the risk of death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. From a bare reading of the above provision, the only liability of the insurance company is that it has to indemnify the insured against the liabilities incurred towards the third parties, or regarding the damage to the property. 27. In other words, if the owner has no liability to a third party, the insurance company also cannot be made liable. The said aspect was not considered by the Tribunal, and committed an error in saddling the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 liability on the insurance company, i.e., respondent No.3. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal fastening the liability on respondent No.3 is perverse, and arbitrary, and without considering the provision of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 28. Thus, respondent No.3 has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. Point No.2: 29. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability to an extent of 50% on respondent No.1. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment in fastening 50% liability on respondent No.1. Hence, point No.2 is answered in the negative. Point No.3: 30. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order: - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal No.23651 of 2013 is allowed. (ii) The judgment and award passed in MVC No.485/2010, fastening the liability on respondent No.3, is set aside. Consequently, the claim petition against respondent No.3 is dismissed. (iii) The MFA Cross objection No.100031 of 2017 is dismissed. (iv) Respondent No.1-owner is directed to pay the compensation of Rs. *89,820/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum till its realization. (v) Respondent No 1- owner is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. (vi) The amount in deposit in both matters is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. *Corrected vide Court order dated 14.11.2025 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9361 MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 23651 of 2013 (vii) In view of the disposal of the matters, pending interlocutory applications in both the appeals, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/- RK CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11