- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26455 MFA No. 1949 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1949 OF 2017 (MV- D) BETWEEN: THE CLAIM MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MAIN OFFICE AT ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI, AND BANGALORE BRANCH AT NO.70/5, SUVARNA TOWER, FIRST FLOOR, NEAR VIJAYANAGARA, B. D. A. COMPLEX, GOVINDARAJANAGARA, BANGALORE-560040, BY ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE-560025, BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIKKAMMA W/O LATE MARIYAPPA, Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26455 MFA No. 1949 of 2017 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. NAGARATHNA W/O LATE GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 3. THEJAS S/O LATE GANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS 4. RAJU S/O LATE GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.2. ALL ARE R/A SUBBAIAH LAYOUT, HOSPET, MAGADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA DIST-571511 5. SRI C. KUMAR S/O CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A SHANUBHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KOOTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571511. …RESPONDENTS (R1 & R2 ARE SERVED; R3 & R4 ARE MINOR REP. BY R2; V/O DATED 29.05.2019 NOTICE TO R5 IS H/S) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26455 MFA No. 1949 of 2017 THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.09/2014 (OLD NO.208/2013) ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, MAGADI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,23,400/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% 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 C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the insurer calling in question the judgment and award dated 05.11.2016 passed in MVC No.09/2014 (Old No.208/2013) by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT1, Magadi. 2. The Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 05.11.2016, has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of `13,23,400/- together with interest at 8% p.a. Being aggrieved, the insurer has filed the above appeal. 1 Hereinafter referred as to 'Tribunal' - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26455 MFA No. 1949 of 2017 3. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri O.Mahesh, for the appellant/insurer. The respondents are served and unrepresented. 4. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the rider of the motor cycle having carried two pillion riders on the motor cycle, the same amounts to violation of the policy of insurance, as also there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased who was riding the motor cycle. It is further contended that the TVS motor cycle not having been contemplated to carry three persons, there is no coverage of the policy of insurance. 5. It is further submitted that although grounds have been urged in the memorandum of appeal with regard to quantum, the same is not seriously pressed due to passage of time from the date of filing of the appeal. 6. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellant have been considered and the material on records has been perused. The question that arises for consideration is: i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal on negligence is erroneous and liable to be interfered? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26455 MFA No. 1949 of 2017 Re. question No.(i): 7. It is forthcoming that the claim petition was filed claiming compensation for the death of deceased in a road traffic accident which occurred on 12.09.2012. It was the case of the claimant that when they were riding on a TVS motor cycle, a canter vehicle came from the opposite side and hit the motor cycle which the deceased was riding, causing the accident in question. In the claim proceedings, the owner and the insurer of the canter vehicle was arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The respondent No.2-insurer filed statement of objections and contested the claim proceedings. No statement of objections has been filed by the owner of the vehicle. 8. The Tribunal considered the contention put fourth on behalf of the insurer that the deceased was riding along with two pillion riders and having regard to the fact that three riders were riding on the motor cycle, they contributed to causing the accident in question. While considering the same, the Tribunal has noticed the spot mahazar and sketch produced along with the charge sheet (Ex.P.2) and has recorded a finding that the canter vehicle had moved to the right side of the road and hit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26455 MFA No. 1949 of 2017 the TVS motor cycle. Hence the Tribunal has recorded a finding that it cannot be said the that the rider of the motor cycle lost control over the two wheeler and hit the canter vehicle. Hence, the Tribunal held that moving of three persons on the motor cycle had not contributed to the accident. 9. It is further relevant to note here, the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE AND ANOTHER V/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS2. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, three persons riding a motor cycle would be in violation of Section 128 of the Act, which imposes a restriction on the rider of the motor cycle, not to carry more than one person in the motor cycle. Considering the same, it is held that carrying another pillion rider may be a violation of law, but such violation by itself without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that the very act of riding along with two others contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. It is pertinent to note that mere 2 "2020 ACJ 751" - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26455 MFA No. 1949 of 2017 violation of Section 128 of the MV Act, will not automatically lead to a finding of contributory negligence. 10. In the present case, although it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that since three persons were carried on the vehicle which has contributed to causing the accident in question, having regard to the finding of the Tribunal that the canter vehicle moved to the right side of the road which resulted in causing the accident in question, as also the finding of the Tribunal that carriage of three persons in the TVS motor cycle did not contribute to causing the accident in question, the contention put forth on behalf of the appellant regarding contributory negligence is not liable to be accepted. 11. The further contention sought to be made that two pillion riders having been carried is not covered under the policy of insurance is also not liable to be accepted, in view of the admitted position that the driver of the canter vehicle has been held to be negligent in causing the accident in question. 12. In view of the aforementioned, the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26455 MFA No. 1949 of 2017 ORDER i) The above appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit; ii) The amount deposited by the appellant in the above appeal be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the judgment and award of the Tribunal. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SRK/-List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28