- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010245962020 NC: 2026:KHC:38679 MFA No. 3824 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3824 OF 2020 (MV-DM) BETWEEN: CHRISTABEL NEETA RANI, D/O VINCENT ROOP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.393, AKSHAYA PARADISE, 5TH CROSS, 1ST FLOOR, IDEAL HOMES LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 098. REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, VINCENT ROOP SINGH, S/O LAWRENCE BAHADUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.393, AKSHAYA PARADISE, 5TH CROSS, 1ST FLOOR, IDEAL HOMES LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 098. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010245962020 NC: 2026:KHC:38679 MFA No. 3824 of 2020 AND: 1. RAJA N., S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT SULIKUNTE COLONY, GAUTHAMANAGAR, DOMMASANDRA, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 125. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 2. LAKSHMI S.V., W/O SADASHIVA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.02, CHOKKASANDRA, HUSKUR POST, SARAJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 125, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., OFFICE AT. ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, NO.414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDDI VINAYAKA TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI - 400 025, MAHARASTRA STATE. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 - RAJA N IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 24.03.2026; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.4498/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010245962020 NC: 2026:KHC:38679 MFA No. 3824 of 2020 SCCH-13 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant is before this Court challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C No.4498/2017 dated 26.08.2019 by the M.A.C.T, Bengaluru, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the petition filed by the claimant and granted compensation of Rs.86,555/- with 6% interest per annum to the claimant and further by exonerating the insurance company - respondent No.3 directed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the owner and the driver are responsible to pay the compensation. 2. The claim petition is filed for the damages caused to the car bearing registration No.KA-05-MS-6693 by the appellant claiming, when he was driving the said car at Whitefield on 08.02.2017, a Tata Ace bearing registration No.KA-51-B-8280 driven by its driver, came in a rash and - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010245962020 NC: 2026:KHC:38679 MFA No. 3824 of 2020 negligent manner and dashed against the claimant's car. As a result, the claimant's car was damaged. Respondent No.1 i.e., the driver of the offending Tata Ace car was heavily drunk and as a result, the accident was caused. 3. The Tribunal, upon assessment of oral and documentary evidence has partly allowed the claim petition as stated supra. While exonerating the insurance company of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal observed that under the influence of alcohol, the driver of the offending Tata Ace drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the accident has caused. Hence, the insurance company was not held liable to pay the compensation. 4. On perusal of the entire evidence and materials on record, it is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was covered with the insurance of respondent No.3 before the Tribunal. No doubt, the accident was caused due to the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010245962020 NC: 2026:KHC:38679 MFA No. 3824 of 2020 rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle under the influence of alcohol. 5. However, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pappu and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr. reported in AIR 2018 SC 592, the insurance company is liable to make good the compensation initially. However, the insurance company is at liberty to recover the same from the insured owner of the offending vehicle. 6. As far as the enhancement of the compensation is concerned, on careful examination of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal is justified in awarding the above compensation which does not require any interference. In view of the above, the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010245962020 NC: 2026:KHC:38679 MFA No. 3824 of 2020 (ii) The findings of the Tribunal that respondent Nos.1 and 2 - the owner and driver of the offending vehicle are responsible to pay the compensation by exonerating the insurance company is modified and the insurance company is directed to pay the compensation. (iii) However, the insurance company is at liberty to recover the same from the insured- owner. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4