- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9292 MFA No. 23960 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23960 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. GURUNATHGOUDA TIMMNAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC DRIVER R/O. JAGAPUR, TQ: NARGUND DIST: GADAG. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADV) AND: 1. GOVINDARADDI VENKARADDI HONCHAND AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER R/O. JAGAPUR, TQ: NARGUND DIST: GADAG. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER ISSUING BRANCH OFFICE, TONTADARY VIDYAPEETH BUILDING, ROTARY CIRCLE, P B ROAD, GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRIYUTHS. PREETI SHASHANK AND SHASHANK S. HEGDE, ADVS FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05-08-2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.190/2006 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, GADAG, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER : MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.01 11:35:29 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9292 MFA No. 23960 of 2013 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 appellant, challenging the judgment and award dated 05.08.2011, passed in MVC No.190/2006 by the learned Fast Track and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on the rankings before the Tribunal. The appellant was the petitioner and respondents were the respondents. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. On 12.03.2006, at about 10 a.m., the petitioner, being the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.26-J-6771, was proceeding as a pillion rider on it and Govind Reddy, son of Venkaraddi Hanchinal of Jagapur, was riding the motorcycle. He lost his control over the motorcycle and as a result, the petitioner fell down on the ground and sustained grievous injuries. He - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9292 MFA No. 23960 of 2013 spent more than ₹30,000/- towards medical expenses. The petitioner was aged about 33 years and was earning ₹6,000/- per month as a conductor in KSRTC. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the respondents, claiming a compensation amount of ₹2,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 5. Respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It has denied the age, occupation, address and income of the petitioner. It is contended that the driver of the vehicle was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, and therefore, there was a breach of the policy condition. Hence, respondent No.2, being the insurer of the said motorcycle is not liable to pay the compensation, in the event if the Court holds that respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2 with costs. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9292 MFA No. 23960 of 2013 6. The Tribunal, based on the rival contentions of the parties, framed relevant issues and additional issues. 7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case examined himself as PW-1 and examined one more witness as PW-2 and marked 41 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-41. 8. On the other hand, an officer of respondent No.2 was examined as P.W.1 and respondents produced two documents, marked as Ex R1 and R2. 9. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence, hearing both parties, and assessing verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition by judgment dated 05.08.2011. 10. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9292 MFA No. 23960 of 2013 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. To prove the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner produced the charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-4. He submits that the petitioner was a pillion rider and he is a third party and hence, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the liability of the insurance company is only to indemnify the insured against a loss incurred towards a third person or in respect of damage to the property. Thus, where the insured, as the owner of the vehicle, is not a third party, and therefore, the insurance company has no liability. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9292 MFA No. 23960 of 2013 14. Perused the records. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 15. The points that arise for consideration are as follows: (i) Whether the petitioner prove that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition? (ii) What order or award? 16. Point No.1: Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the motorcycle involved in the accident. The petitioner being the owner of the motor cycle did not become entitled to receive the compensation from himself. The question of the petitioner becoming liable to pay compensation to himself did not arise at all. In such circumstances, the question of the insured being indemnified by the insurer did not arise at all. 17. From the perusal of the records, it becomes abundantly clear that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9292 MFA No. 23960 of 2013 petition on the ground that the owner of the vehicle is not entitled to compensation, as he is not a third party. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi reported in (1998) 1 SCC 365 held that the liability of the insurance company is only to indemnify the insured against the liability incurred towards third party or in respect of damage to the property. 19. Considering the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunita Rathi, referred to supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the proposition of law in the case of Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 553 at paragraph 8, which reads as follows: “8. Thus, an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9292 MFA No. 23960 of 2013 or his authorised 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. Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.” 20. Thus, insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insurer in respect of the death or bodily injuries to any person, including any owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any of the property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle and Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, does not require that the insurance company to assume the risk for the death or bodily injury to the owner or the vehicle. 21. The proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is that where the insurer, i.e., the owner of the vehicle, does not become liable to pay compensation to a third - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9292 MFA No. 23960 of 2013 party, the insurer has no liability to pay compensation for the death or bodily injuries caused to the owner of the vehicle. 22. As discussed above, the petitioner, being the owner of the motorcycle, is not entitled to compensation on account of the injuries caused to him. 23. The Tribunal, considering the entire material on record, was justified in dismissing the claim petition. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I answer the point for consideration in the negative. 24. Point No. 2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and award passed in MVC No. 190/2006 dated 05.08.2011 by the learned Fast - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9292 MFA No. 23960 of 2013 Track Court and Additional MACT, Gadag, is confirmed. (iii) No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56