- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33613 MFA No. 1561 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1561 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE EXTN. COUNTER UMA NILAYA, 1ST FLOOR, B H ROAD, TARIKERE TOWN REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AT REGIONAL OFFICER, #44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 025. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRISHAILA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AFSAL AHAMED S/O KAREEM SAB AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SUNDRESH BADAVANE KODI CAMP, TARIKERE TOWN AND TALUK 2. PARVEEZ BASHA S/O NAZEER SAB AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3RD CROSS, BOVI COLONY, KODI CAMP, TARIKERE TOWN Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33613 MFA No. 1561 of 2020 3. RANGANATHA T M S/O MAILARAPPA MAJOR R/O NO.6605, TUDIPETE, MACHENAHALLI, TARIKERE TOWN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALATESH H., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 428/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL J.M.F.C., TARIKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,20,405/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 14.10.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal J.M.F.C. Tarikere, in MVC No.428/2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33613 MFA No. 1561 of 2020 compensation of Rs.3,20,405/- with interest at 6% per annum. 2. The sole contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability upon Insurance Company to satisfy the award and indemnify respondent No.3, the owner of the offending vehicle, by directing it to pay the compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injured was travelling in the offending lorry as a gratuitous passenger. However, the Tribunal erroneously held that he was driving the said vehicle at the time of the accident. Placing reliance on the evidence of PW.1, learned counsel contends that PW.1 has categorically deposed that he himself was driving the lorry and that the claimant was seated beside him. He also places reliance on the testimony of RW.1, the official/officer of the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that two persons cannot simultaneously drive the same vehicle. Therefore, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33613 MFA No. 1561 of 2020 finding of the Tribunal that the injured was driving the offending vehicle is contrary to the evidence on record. 4. Learned counsel further submits that, since PW.1 has categorically admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time, the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the injured was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Consequently, the said finding of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. He further contends that, as the injured was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, in view of the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BIJAPUR Vs. YALLAVVA AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 2 KCCR 1405 and in SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V. SEEMA AND OTHERS, in MFA No.652/2024, the appellant–Insurance Company may be directed to satisfy the award in the first instance with liberty to recover the compensation amount from respondent No.3, the owner of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33613 MFA No. 1561 of 2020 the offending vehicle. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, having regard to the evidence of PW.1, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the injured was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and has rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company to satisfy the award. Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of the appeal. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have carefully perused the entire record. 7. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33613 MFA No. 1561 of 2020 "Whether the injured was driving the offending vehicle or was travelling therein as a gratuitous passenger at the time of the accident?" 8. As could be gathered from the records, it is not in dispute that the accident in question occurred involving the offending vehicle and that the said vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy issued by the appellant–Insurance Company. 9. On careful examination of the evidence of PW.1, he has stated that he was the driver of the vehicle in question. However, it is also his testimony that, at the time of accident, the injured was the driving the vehicle. Once PW.1 admits that he was the driver of the vehicle, the injured was not authorized to drive the vehicle. However, the fact remains that the injured was also in the vehicle at the time of accident. In such circumstances, it has to be presumed that he was a gratuitous passenger. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the judgments - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33613 MFA No. 1561 of 2020 referred supra, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KAMINIBEN & OTHERS VS. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & OTHERS, reported in 2026 ACJ 447, held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the gratuitous passenger, keeping in view the benevolent object of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, it was held that thereafter the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the said amount from the insured, i.e., the owner of the vehicle. 10. In such circumstances, placing reliance on the above judgment, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erred only in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. After finding that the injured was traveling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger at the time of accident. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the Insurance Company is set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33613 MFA No. 1561 of 2020 11. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. However, it is at liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle namely, Ranganatha T.M./respondent No.3. 12. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55