- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27106 MFA No. 4059 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4059 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD, NO 663, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN DEFENSE COLONY, 100FT ROAD, INDIRANAGAR 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 036. THROUGH ITS BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE NO 44 /45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE 25, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. CHAMPA DEVI GUPTA, W/O R B GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O NO.1024, 2ND MAIN, 9TH CROSS, UDAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 016. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S GUPTA STEEL AND ALLOYS, NO.20, PUTTAPPA COMPLEX, MAHACEVAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA E P., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.7.2013 PASSED IN MVC Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27106 MFA No. 4059 of 2014 NO.6130/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRL. MACT. BANGALORE AWARDING A SUM OF RS.2,53,350/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurer(respondent No.1) against the judgment and award dated 31st July 2013, passed by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (SCCH-1), Bangalore, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.6130/2010. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 07.02.2010, at about 3.30 p.m., the claimant was travelling along with her son/Rakesh Gupta in a Tata Safari car bearing registration No.KA-03-MK-2246 on Chittor-Thirupathi road. On the way, they met with an accident near IBP Petrol Bunk at Chandragiri, due to rash - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27106 MFA No. 4059 of 2014 and negligent driving of Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TN-37-Y-5929. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the said vehicle. Respondent No.1 filed a written statement denying the contents of the claim petition and also denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 11 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-11. Respondents examined one witness as RW-1 and marked document as Ex.R-1. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27106 MFA No. 4059 of 2014 7. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, allowed the claim petition, awarding the following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Injury, pain and sufferings 20,000/- Medical expenses 2,24,850/- Loss of earnings during the period of treatment 2,100/- Attendant expenses 1,400/- Travelling expenses 5,000/- Total 2,53,350/- 8. The main contention of the appellant/insurer is that, according to the averments stated in the claim petition, the petitioner was a director of respondent No.2/company. It has not produced any materials to prove whether it was a public limited company or a firm. It is stated that claimant was a director, and she had stepped into the shoes of owner of the vehicle. Hence, she cannot maintain the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27106 MFA No. 4059 of 2014 Vehicles Act, as she is not a third party. She cannot be considered a third party under Section 147 of the MV Act and is not entitled to claim the compensation. 9. As per the cause title, the name of respondent No.2 is shown as Managing Director, M/s. Gupta Steel and Alloys. The claimant was shown as a director of the said company. Respondent No.2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. A copy of the policy is placed on record before this court, which indicates that the name of the insured is M/s. Gupta Steel and Alloys, and it is not registered in the name of the individual. In view of the contents of the claim petition, she appears to be the director of the respondent No.2 and she cannot be considered a third party as per the law laid down in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal and Others1. Hence, the respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation. 1 (2007) 5 SCC 428 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27106 MFA No. 4059 of 2014 10. I have gone through the entire record. There are no materials to show that respondent No.2 is an individual proprietor. The name as well as designation of the claimant indicates that it was a company. The said vehicle was belonging to the company and she was travelling in the said vehicle as a Director of the said company. In the above referred case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: " 29. On the facts of this case, there is no finding that Mahmood Hasan, another employee of the owner was driving the vehicle. Even if he was, there is no finding of his negligence. The victim was the Regional Manager of the Company that owned the car. He was using the car given to him by the Company for use. Whether he is treated as the owner of the vehicle or as an employee, he is not covered by the insurance policy taken in terms of the Act-without any special contract-since there is no award under the Workmen's Compensation Act that is required to be satisfied by the insurer. In these circumstances, we hold that the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured and is also not obliged to satisfy the award of the Tribunal/Court and then have recourse to the insured, the owner of the vehicle. The High Court was in error in modifying the award of the Tribunal in that regard." 11. In view of the law laid down in the above said judgment, which is applicable to the facts of present case, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27106 MFA No. 4059 of 2014 she was a director of the company and she was not a third party. Therefore, she cannot be a claimant as well as a recipient. Hence, the claim petition against the insurer/respondent No.1 is not maintainable. The main question in this case is not on merits but regarding the maintainability of the claim petition. Therefore, there is no need to reassess the materials or evidence and give the finding regarding merits of the matter. 12. For above said reasons, the appeal is not considered on merits. 13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 31st July 2013, passed in MVC.No.6130/2010, by the Member Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, is set aside. iii) The claim petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Since, the claimant is not third party to respondent No.2 and cannot claim the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27106 MFA No. 4059 of 2014 compensation under Section 166 of MV Act and insurer is not liable to pay the compensation under Section 147 of the MV Act. iv) Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant shall be refunded. v) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9