- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30637 MFA No. 3702 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3702 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, HDFC ERGO GIC LTD NO. 371/1A, 3RD FLOOR PRESTIGE SHOPPING ARCHADE RAMASWAMY CIRCLE MYSORE CITY HDFC ERGO GIC LTD 2ND FLOOR, NO 25/1 BUILDING NO. 2 SHANKARNARAYANA BUILDING MG ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAVEEN H J LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 2. BHAGYA W/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT HEGGADAHALLI VILLAGE PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 3. THE MANAGER Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30637 MFA No. 3702 of 2021 ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO. 133, 3RD FLOOR SHIKHA TOERS. RAMAVILASA ROAD MYSORE-570024 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.30.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1140/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,00,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.11.2019 passed in MVC No.1140/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, has preferred this appeal questioning the liability fastened on the appellant to pay the compensation. 2. The facts which are not in dispute between both the sides are that, the claimants No.1 and 2 being the legal heirs of deceased Javaregowda filed the claim - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30637 MFA No. 3702 of 2021 petition under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.41,21,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum on account of death of Javaregowda in a road traffic accident that took place on 15.05.2015 at 2.30pm. 3. It is stated in the claim petition that, deceased Javaregowda on the ill-fated day was driving his tractor- trailer bearing Registration No. KA-11-TA-1202 and No.KA-11-TS-1653 along with one Punith Gowda to bring the soil from Vedesamudra village. It is stated that, when they came to the land of Honnegowda, suddenly driver of the tractor i.e., deceased Javaregowda lost his control over the said tractor and toppled down in a stream (halla). Due to this, Javaregowda died on the spot itself. The inmate of the tractor-trailer Punith Gowda died in the hospital. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Javaregowda and have spent substantial money i.e., Rs.20,000/- towards transportation of dead body and spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards funeral and other expenses. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30637 MFA No. 3702 of 2021 It is contended that, because of the death of a deceased Javaregowda in the said accident, the claimants have suffered lot and put to mental agony. The deceased Javaregowda was earning about Rs.25,000/- per month and thus, they pray for awarding compensation as prayed. 4. Before the Tribunal, both the respondents appeared and filed their detailed written objections. So far as respondent No.1 is concerned, it is contended that, it has issued policy in respect of the offending vehicle i.e., which is tractor in respect of which 'liability only' policy was issued. It is contended that, if at all there is any liability, it is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy and subject to valid and effective driving license of the driver of the tractor. The other assertions are denied by the respondent No.1. It is contended that the said accident has taken place only because of the rash and negligent driving of the late Javaregowda and therefore the claim so made by the claimants is not sustainable against respondent No.1. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30637 MFA No. 3702 of 2021 5. It is contended by respondent No.2 that, driver of the said offending vehicle was not holding the effective driving license at the time of the accident. The policy in respect of trailer was in force from 21.06.2014 to 20.06.2015 and its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The said accident has taken place because of the negligence on the part of the Javaregowda himself. Hence, both the respondents are not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, it is prayed by the respondents to dismiss the appeal. 6. Based upon the rival pleadings, learned tribunal framed three issues and one additional issue. 7. Before the Tribunal, to prove the case of the claimants, one Naveena and Nagesha being the claimant No.1 and so called eyewitness were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and got marked documents as exhibits as P1 to P9. To rebut the evidence of the claimants, the respondents have examined two witnesses one Madhumathi Hegde and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30637 MFA No. 3702 of 2021 one S K Sandeep as RWs 1 and 2 and marked exhibits as R1 to R5. 8. On hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that, the petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, fastening the liability on Respondent No.1 to pay the compensation amount and dismissed the claim petition against Respondent No.2. Now respondent No.1 is before the Court challenging fastening 'liability only'. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri. B Pradeep submits that, as the policy issued was a 'liability only' policy, therefore the fastening liability on respondent No.1 is incorrect and the accident occurred was due to the deceased himself. Therefore, the liability is not covered to pay the compensation as ordered by the Tribunal. Further, he submits that, the Tribunal has wrongly - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30637 MFA No. 3702 of 2021 fastened the liability on Respondent No.1., hence prays to allow this appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submits that, the liability is rightly fastened on the Respondent No.1 and compensation so awarded is very much meager. He would further submits that, if at all the Court comes to the conclusion that, respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation, a liberty may be given to the claimants to approach the insurance company to get their claim i.e., personal accident claim. 11. On scrupulous reading of the records made available, it is not in dispute that, the accident took place on 15.05.2015 because of toppling down of tractor-trailer bearing Registration No. KA-11-TA-1202 and No.KA-11- TS-1653. In the said accident, Javaregowda being the driver of the said tractor, died on the spot itself. It is also not in dispute that, 'personal accidental coverage' was given by the respondent No.1. - Insurance company has - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30637 MFA No. 3702 of 2021 issued policy in respect of personal accident i.e, in the name of Javaregoweda. If that is so, the Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act comes into operation. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that, the deceased himself was the owner/driver of the vehicle, the risk of the owner is not required to be covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and remedy of the claimants is somewhere else i.e., before the Insurance Company itself and they cannot maintain the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation. 12. It is rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that, the appellant is not required to indemnify the liability of the insurance of third parties and it is not at its risk. The appellant is required to indemnify the liability of the insured of third parties and not personal risk. In support of the submission learned counsel for the appellant relies on judgment of the Apex Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30637 MFA No. 3702 of 2021 13. In view of the clear mandate of provisions of Section 147 of Motor vehicles Act, as well as the risk being not covered under the policy so issued by Respondent No.1, the Tribunal has wrongly concluded that, it is respondent No.1 to pay the compensation. Therefore, in view of the clear mandate of Section 147 of the Motor vehicles Act, the remedy of the claimants is to approach the concerned insurance company and they cannot maintain the claim petition. 14. Therefore, accepting the grounds urged in the appeal memo as well as the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, this appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2019 passed in MVC No.1140/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30637 MFA No. 3702 of 2021 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 30.11.2019 passed in MVC No.1140/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, is hereby set aside. (iii) However, liberty is reserved to the claimants to approach the concerned insurance company if at all they are entitled to any compensation. (iv) The insurance company shall consider the claim of the claimants irrespective of delay caused in the claim in view of pendency of these claim petition and appeal before the tribunal and this Court. (v) The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant digitally forthwith. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE BSV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17