- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336 MFA No. 101552 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101552 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., EXTENSION COUNTER, NO.198, PARTAVATI NIVAS, KHANAPUR ROAD, BELAGAVI, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI RAMA @ RAMACHANDRA S/O. NAGESH HURUDE, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. MASON, R/O. H.NO. 257, BAHER GALLI, KANGRALI (B.K.), TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590021. 2. SHRI RAHUL S/O. MARUTI PATIL, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. LAITHMACHINE WORK, R/O. AT RANAKUNDE, POST: SANTIBASTAWAD, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590023. (OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE KA-22/ED-4157) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK BARIGIDAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.T. BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 16/12/2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2161/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 1,44,900/-, AT THE RATE OF 9%, PER ANNUM, FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT AND OF RS. 10,000/- WITHOUT INTEREST, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.10 12:31:06 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336 MFA No. 101552 of 2017 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and award dated 16.12.2016 passed in MVC No.2161/2015 by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings, before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 21.12.2012, at about 5:30 PM, the petitioner was returning on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/ED-8277 from Bhagyanagar to Kangrali (B.K.) village of Belagavi at a moderate speed. When he reached the near the spot of the accident, the owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle bearing - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336 MFA No. 101552 of 2017 No.KA-22/ED-4157 came from the opposite direction, in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner’s motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained a grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. The owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/ED-4157 filed a statement of objections contending that the rider of the motorcycle possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation claimed by the petitioner. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the rider cum owner of the offending vehicle. 5. The Insurance Company filed its statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the rider of the offending Vehicle ridden the same being intoxicated and the charge - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336 MFA No. 101552 of 2017 sheet is filed against the intoxicated Owner cum Rider. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation claimed by the petitioner, as there was a violation of the policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. To substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1, the Doctor was examined as PW-2 and marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to P13. Conversely, on behalf of the Insurance Company, its Official was examined as RW-1, and marked 2 documents as Ex.R1 and R2. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 16.12.2016 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,44,900/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336 MFA No. 101552 of 2017 directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount. 9. Aggrieved by the Judgment and award, passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the rider of the offending vehicle was riding the motorcycle under intoxicated state. Thus, there is a violation of policy conditions. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the owner and the Insurance Company jointly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336 MFA No. 101552 of 2017 and severally. The tribunal was justified in saddling the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is regarding the liability. Regarding Liability: 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident. A charge sheet is filed against the rider of the motorcycle, marked as Ex.P6. The Tribunal, while considering Ex.P6, has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending motorcycle. 16. In so far as the rider of the offending motorcycle was under intoxicated state is concerned, merely, because the rider was under intoxicated state, is not a ground for the Insurance Company to escape from the liability to pay - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336 MFA No. 101552 of 2017 the compensation. There is a contract between the owner of the offending motorcycle and the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount. Drunken driving is not a ground for the Insurance Company to escape from the liability, and to place the liability on the rider of the offending vehicle. 17. The Tribunal relying upon the Judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Smt.Dyamavva W/o Yalgurdappa Goudar and another reported in (2013) 1 AIR Kar R 401, was justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. At the cost of repetition, the drunken driving cannot be a ground to the Insurance Company to escape from the liability, and to place the liability on the rider of the offending motorcycle. Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned Judgment. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11336 MFA No. 101552 of 2017 18. Accordingly, I concur with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The Judgment and award dated 16.12.2016 in MVC No.2161/2015 passed by the learned XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi, is hereby confirmed. (iii) The amount in deposit, and trial court records, if any, be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/- CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14