- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010283382025 NC: 2026:KHC:38328 RP No. 191 of 2025 C/W RP No. 194 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA REVIEW PETITION NO. 191 OF 2025 C/W REVIEW PETITION NO. 194 OF 2025 IN RP No. 191/2025: BETWEEN: INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SURVEY NO. 115/1, FINANCIAL DISTRICT NANAKRAMGUDA, HYDERABAD-500 032 REPRESENTED BY IT’S GENERAL MANAGER MR. SURESH NAIR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. SRIRANGA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NINGESH S/O MAYIGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010283382025 NC: 2026:KHC:38328 RP No. 191 of 2025 C/W RP No. 194 of 2025 2. NINGAMMA W/O NINGESH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MARUVANAHALLI VILLAGE BAGURU HOBLI, CHANARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN-573 111. 3. NANJEGOWDA S/O CHIKKEGOWDA, MAJOR RESIDING AT MARUVANAHALLI VILLAGE BAGURU HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT -573 111. 4. THE MANAGER THE ROYAL SUNDRAM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.186/7, RAGHAVENDRA PLAZA WILSON GARDEN, HOSURU MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.R. RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.09.2024 PASSED IN MFA NO.206/2018 (ANNEXURE A) AND ALLOW THE SAID PETITION, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010283382025 NC: 2026:KHC:38328 RP No. 191 of 2025 C/W RP No. 194 of 2025 IN RP NO. 194/2025 BETWEEN: INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SURVEY NO. 115/1, FINANCIAL DISTRICT NANAKRAMGUDA, HYDERABAD-500 032 REPRESENTED BY IT’S GENERAL MANAGER MR. SURESH NAIR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. SRIRANGA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA @ MOOGAPPA S/O ADINARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA @ MOOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. MASTER ANAND S/O LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA @ MOOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT GINKALAVARIPALLI VILLAGE - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010283382025 NC: 2026:KHC:38328 RP No. 191 of 2025 C/W RP No. 194 of 2025 GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT AND NOW AT NO.102M 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064. 4. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ INS. CO. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 NO.132, SRI BALAJI SOVEREIGN, 2ND FLOOR NEXT TO URBAN EDGE, BRIGADE ROAD BENGALURU -560 068 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 5. G. GANGADHAR S/O GOVINDAPPA, MAJOR RESIDING AT ALLAPURA VILLAGE GOURIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.R. RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 AND R5 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.09.2024, PASSED IN MFA NO. 11440/2011 (ANNEXURE A) AND ALLOW THE SAID PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. PETITIONER. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 16.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010283382025 NC: 2026:KHC:38328 RP No. 191 of 2025 C/W RP No. 194 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV ORDER Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India has filed these review petitions against the order of this court dated 12.09.2024 passed in MFA No.11440 of 2011 connected with MFA No.206 of 2018. 2. Both the above mentioned appeals were filed claiming compensation for the death of minor children aged 14 and 20 years respectively. This court granted an amount of Rs.11,85,471/- and Rs.8,63,992/- respectively. Apart from that, it was also directed as follows. “The Insurer shall also issue a Medical Insurance Policy in the name of the parent(s) to the extent of Rs.10 lakhs, which would come into effect from the date on which the parent attains the age of 60 years. An option to purchase an additional cover by the parents, at their own cost (popularly termed as “Top-up Cover” by the Insurers), shall also be provided.” 3. Aggrieved by the said order, these review applications are filed by the petitioner- Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010283382025 NC: 2026:KHC:38328 RP No. 191 of 2025 C/W RP No. 194 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not a party to the MFA in which the judgment dated 12.09.2024 was passed and it affects his interest. It contended that as per Section 146 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), all motor vehicles on Indian roads should have valid third party insurance as well as policy of insurance under Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, for a vehicle carrying or meant to carry dangerous or hazardous goods. So there is no provision in the Act that mandates insurance companies to offer compulsory medical cover to parents in the cases of death of minors. Therefore, the direction issued to petitioner to formulate a policy for the parents of deceased minors is beyond the scope of the Act. The learned counsel contended that the Act provides for unlimited liability for death and injury claims but does not consider future financial dependency of parents on minors. Section 168 of the Act states that Claims Tribunal shall determine the just compensation to be paid. The direction issued by the Impugned Order directs the insurers to provide - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010283382025 NC: 2026:KHC:38328 RP No. 191 of 2025 C/W RP No. 194 of 2025 for an additional policy in addition to just compensation which is not provided for in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1966. Hence, the direction issued to Petitioner to formulate a policy for the parents of deceased minors is beyond the scope of the Act. It is further contended that changes to the Motor Vehicle Third Party insurance coverage must align with the Motor Vehicle Act's statutory framework. Any modifications to the said policy can be implemented only in consultation with the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH). Therefore, implementation of the policy as directed by this Court cannot be implemented unilaterally by insurers or Petitioner. It is also contended that the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, (Act) 1999 is an enactment which provides for the establishment of an Authority to protect the interest of the policyholders, to regulate, promote and to ensure orderly growth of the insurance industry and for the matters connected with or incidental thereto. Section 3 of the Act provides for establishment of Petitioner by the Central Government. Section 14 of the Act empowers Petitioner to regulate, promote and ensure orderly growth of the insurance business and re- - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010283382025 NC: 2026:KHC:38328 RP No. 191 of 2025 C/W RP No. 194 of 2025 insurance business in the country. The main objective behind the establishment of Petitioner is not only to protect the interests of insures but also to ensure orderly growth of insurance industry and to develop the same for the economic growth of the country. It is also contended that the impugned order directs payment of additional amount in addition to just compensation which has led to unreasonable increase in compensation to be paid to parents after the death of the minor child. The said assessment of increased compensation will have an impact on assessment of compensation when a major dies due to motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the same has a cascading effect on the insurance companies' health and growth. The compensation determined by the Impugned Order is not in accordance with directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Corut in a catena of decisions. Therefore, the same has led to conflict in the methodology to be adopted for determination of just compensation. Hence, there is no uniformity in the methodology to be adopted for determining just compensation. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010283382025 NC: 2026:KHC:38328 RP No. 191 of 2025 C/W RP No. 194 of 2025 5. It is contended by the learned counsel that this Court by its judgment has directed the insurance companies to formulate a policy wherein insurer (in cases where the offending vehicle is insured) has to purchase health insurance for the parents which would cover their medical needs till the end of their lives from the moment they turn 60 years old. It is submitted that it is difficult to determine premium for such a policy without knowing the duration of the health insurance policy. Further, due to inflation of rates in medical services determination of cost of such an insurance policy is difficult. Therefore, determination of premium of such a policy leads to a situation of "undeterminable and unlimited" compensation. It is further contended that it is impossible for the insures or insurance companies to track the health of the beneficiaries of such policy for a lifetime. The insurers have no recourse to determine the health condition of the beneficiary after he attains the age 13 of 60 years and becomes eligible for the health insurance policy. The said situation will lead to insurance companies having undeterminable liabilities, thus adversely impacting the financial soundness of insurance companies. It is - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010283382025 NC: 2026:KHC:38328 RP No. 191 of 2025 C/W RP No. 194 of 2025 also contended that due to failure in adequate law enforcement measures the percentage of uninsured vehicle in India is approximately 54% for four- wheeler vehicle and approximately like 80% for three wheelers or two wheelers. In these circumstances, the additional liability to be paid under third party liabilities will also have to borne by the insurance companies. It is also contended that the insurance company i.e., ICICI Lombard has filed a special leave petition bearing SLP (Dy) No.10470/2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 07.04.2025 directed the matter to be listed along with SLP (Dy) No.13544/2025 filed by Respondent No.4. A copy of the said order is produced as Annexure –C to these petitions. It is contended that the impugned judgment of this Court suffers from errors apparent on the face of record and suffers from serious infirmity. Thus, requested to review the order passed in the afore-mentioned MFAs. 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the parties. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010283382025 NC: 2026:KHC:38328 RP No. 191 of 2025 C/W RP No. 194 of 2025 7. Perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.10470/2025 dated 07.04.2025, reads as follows : “3. Learned counsel at the very outset submits that he is not assailing the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court. However, the petitioner is aggrieved by the direction contained in paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment, wherein, the petitioner has been directed to purchase medical insurance policy in the name of the mother, that is, the first claimant which would come into effect from the day she attains the age of 60 years.” 8. The petitioner herein produced Chapter IV of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act of 1999, wherein the duties, powers and functions of Authority are stated as follows: 14. Duties, powers and functions of Authority. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and any other law for the time being in force, the Authority shall have the duty to regulate, promote and ensure orderly growth of the insurance business and re-insurance business. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub- section (1), the powers and functions of the Authority shall include, (a) issue to the applicant a certificate of registration, renew, modify, withdraw, suspend or cancel such registration; - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010283382025 NC: 2026:KHC:38328 RP No. 191 of 2025 C/W RP No. 194 of 2025 (b) protection of the interests of the policy-holders in matters concerning assigning of policy, nomination by policy-holders, insurable interest, settlement of insurance claim, surrender value of policy and other terms and conditions of contracts of insurance; (c) specifying requisite qualifications, code of conduct and practical training for intermediary or insurance intermediaries and agents; (d) specifying the code of conduct for surveyors and loss assessors; (e) promoting efficiency in the conduct of insurance business; (f) promoting and regulating professional organisations connected with the insurance and re-insurance business; (g) levying fees and other charges for carrying out the purposes of this Act; (h) calling for information from, undertaking inspection of, conducting enquiries and investigations including audit of the insurers, intermediaries, insurance intermediaries and other organisations connected with the insurance business; (i) control and regulation of the rates, advantages, terms and conditions that may be offered by insurers in respect of general insurance business not so controlled and regulated by the Tariff Advisory Committee under section 64U of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938); (j) specifying the form and manner in which books of account shall be maintained and statement of accounts shall be rendered by insurers and other insurance intermediaries; (k) regulating investment of funds by insurance companies; - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010283382025 NC: 2026:KHC:38328 RP No. 191 of 2025 C/W RP No. 194 of 2025 (1) regulating maintenance of margin of solvency; (m)adjudication of disputes between insurers and intermediaries or insurance intermediaries; (n)supervising the functioning of the Tariff Advisory Committee; (o) specifying the percentage of premium income of the insurer to finance schemes for promoting and regulating professional organisations referred to in clause (f); (p) specifying the percentage of life insurance business and general insurance business to be undertaken by the insurer in the rural or social sector; and (q) exercising such other powers as may be prescribed.” 9. Admittedly, review is not an opportunity to re-argue the case or act as a substitute for the appeal. In this case, it is clearly brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order of this Court before Apex Court and also simultaneously, filed these petitions for review of the order. The Order XL VII rule 1 states Application for review of judgment.—(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved— - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010283382025 NC: 2026:KHC:38328 RP No. 191 of 2025 C/W RP No. 194 of 2025 (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes. The appeal can be entertained on the above three grounds mentioned herein and when there is no appeal, they can prefer the review proceedings. Admittedly, as they filed appeal, these review applications are not maintainable. 10. Accordingly, review petitions are dismissed. Pending I.As. stand disposed of. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78