- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:761 MFA No. 22111 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22111 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MANJUNATH S/O. GADIGEPPA IDDALAGI, AGE : 30 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. 17TH CROSS, VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT, DIST : BAGALKOT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI P.N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI LUMBARD, GENERAL INSURANCE LTD., BELLAD COMPANY, II FLOOR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PLEASE TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28-01-2012 PASSED BY THE COURT OF MEMBER M.A.C.T-III, BAGALKOT, IN MVC NO.969/2007 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:761 MFA No. 22111 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) The appeal is filed by the claimant/appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 28.01.2012 passed in MVC No.969/2007 on the file of Member MACT-III, Bagalkot, questioning the dismissal of claim petition filed by the claimant. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Heard the arguments from both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 4. It is the case of the claimant that on 08.09.2007, when he was travelling along with his friends in his car bearing Reg.No.KA-25/B-2088 from Vidyagiri to Gaddanakeri cross to fill petrol, the claimant requested his driver to stop the vehicle due to natural call. While the petitioner was opening the door of the car, the vehicle suddenly started to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:761 MFA No. 22111 of 2012 move, due to which the claimant, who is also owner of the car, has filed claim petition against the insurer for claiming compensation. The claim petition was dismissed on the grounds that the claimant himself is the owner of the car, and hence, it is amounts to filing of claim petition against himself by making insurance company as respondent. Therefore, the claim petition was dismissed. 5. In the claim petition, the claimant himself is the owner of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-25/B-2088 and he had sustained injuries in the accident. The driver of the car was driving in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the claimant is amounting to filing of claim petition against himself. 6. The respondent/insurance company comes into picture on the basis of contract of insurance between the claimant and the respondent. The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claiming compensation, primarily against the owner of the vehicle and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:761 MFA No. 22111 of 2012 insurance company comes into picture by virtue of contract of insurance. 7. Therefore, in the present case, the claimant being owner of the car has filed claim petition is amounting filing claim against himself therefore, dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal is perfectly justifiable and legal one. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 54