- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474072016 NC: 2026:KHC:43773 MFA No. 8324 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8324 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., P.B.NO.210, NO.38/1E, 2ND FLOOR, CHAMARAJA DOUBLE ROAD, MYSORE-570 024 NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS THE REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, 44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANANDA., ADVOCATE) AND: CHIKKANNA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A GOWDAGERE BEEDI, ARAKERE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 22.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.520/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474072016 NC: 2026:KHC:43773 MFA No. 8324 of 2016 OF Rs.3,44,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.08.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the judgment and award dated 22.09.2016 passed in MVC No.520/2015 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Srirangapatna. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Injured claimant met with an accident on 15.05.2013 and filed claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs.16,10,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.3,44,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the payment of entire amount. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474072016 NC: 2026:KHC:43773 MFA No. 8324 of 2016 4. Aggrieved by the said order, Insurance Company preferred appeal and mainly contended that the claim petition is filed only against Insurance Company, as such, it is not maintainable. Further contended that the liability of the Insurance Company is to the extent of indemnify the insured against the respondent or an injured person, a third person or in respect of any damage of any property. If the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the question of insurer being liable to indemnify the insured, does not arise. Section 147 of MV Act, does not require an Insurance Company to assume the risk for the death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. The liability under Section 163A of MV Act, is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both claimant also and recipient also. Without considering the same, tribunal fastened liability against the Insurance Company. The claimant himself is owner of the vehicle. He is not a third party to the contract of insurance, therefore requested the court to set aside the award. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474072016 NC: 2026:KHC:43773 MFA No. 8324 of 2016 5. The manner of accident shows while Naveen was riding the motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA11-X-0723 on 15.05.2013, Bajaj Discover, in a rash and negligent manner, lost his control over the vehicle and dashed against the dumping of the mud. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. One H.K. Ravi and Gavi have taken him in an ambulance to the Mandya District Hospital and he died on the way. 6. Respondent in his objection stated that the petition itself is not maintainable as petitioner has not mentioned the policy number, period of validity and further stated that the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-11-X-0723 was not insured with them as on the date of accident. The deceased himself was owner of the motorcycle and there was self-fall while riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. As such, Crime No.173/2013 is registered against him and he is not a third party. As such, his legal representatives cannot maintain a petition under Section 163A, 166 or 140 of the MV Act. The Insurance Company is only liable to indemnify the insured in any claim by third party for his personal injury or by legal representatives of the deceased third party or any property - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474072016 NC: 2026:KHC:43773 MFA No. 8324 of 2016 damage of the third party. In the event of any violation of terms and conditions of the policy, they are not liable to pay the compensation. They have denied that the petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased/Naveen and claim made by him is excessive. The deceased Naveen himself was wrong doer and he was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. The charge sheet filed against him was abated. 7. On perusal of the claim petition, it clearly shows that the petitioner filed claim petition only against the Manager of the Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., but he has not impleaded the driver/owner of the vehicle for the reasons best known to him. Tribunal observed that the application was filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act. As on the date of accident, the accident occurred due to the use of motorcycle and Ex.R1 is the copy of the policy, which was in force as on the date of accident. 8. On perusal of the policy deceased insured had paid PA for owner/driver, GR-36A, it is nothing but a package policy. He has also paid additional premium of Rs.50/- in total, he has paid Rs.1135/-. Regarding liability, as per Ex.R.1 policy is in - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474072016 NC: 2026:KHC:43773 MFA No. 8324 of 2016 force, therefore the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. As the policy was in existence as on the date of accident, Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount within one month. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company that accident occurred only due to self fall is not acceptable. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon citation between United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Sunil Kumar and Anr in case of Civil Appeal No.9694/2013 dated 24.11.2017 between United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Sunil Kumar and Anr in which it was held as follows, “Section 163-A of the Act covers cases where even negligence is on the part of the victim. It is by way of an exception to Section 166 and the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of.” “Section 163-A does not make any provision for apportionment of the liability. If the owner of the vehicle or the insurance company is permitted to prove contributory negligence or default or wrongful act on the part of the victim or claimant, naturally it would defeat the very object and purpose of Section 163-A of the Act. Legislature never wanted the claimant to plead or establish negligence on the part of the owner or the driver. Once it is established that death or permanent disablement occurred during the course of the user of the vehicle and the vehicle is insured, the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be, shall be - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474072016 NC: 2026:KHC:43773 MFA No. 8324 of 2016 liable to pay the compensation, which is a statutory obligation. 8. XXX, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication there under is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.” 10. For the same proposition, they also relied upon citation of this court in 2021(3) Kar L.J.413 dated 11.02.2021 in between Vithal Vs Parashuram and Anr in which it was held as follows, - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474072016 NC: 2026:KHC:43773 MFA No. 8324 of 2016 “21. Section 163-A starts off with a non obstante clause. This clause declares that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force or an instrument having the force of law, the owner of the vehicle or the authorised insurer, shall be liable to pay compensation as indicated in the Second Schedule, in the case of death or permanent disablement due to an accident which arose out of the use of a motor vehicle. This compensation is required to be paid to the legal heirs of a victim.” 11. Further, the claimants relied upon Section 164 of Act will be Act, 1988, which reads as follows, “164. Payment of compensation in case of death or grevious hurt, etc. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim.” 12. In this case, the accident arose out of the use of the motor vehicle. As the application is filed under Section 163-A of MV Act and petitioner need not prove negligent or default on his part. As it is a case of death, he is entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- for compensation as per the provision of law,under 164 of MV Act, 1988. Merely because of the vehicle - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474072016 NC: 2026:KHC:43773 MFA No. 8324 of 2016 is not shown as a party, it can be said that Insurance Company is not liable. Policy was in existence as on the date of accident and it is not in dispute. As the accident is of the year 2013, now this court is not inclined to remand the matter for adducing of evidence of owner of vehicle, moreover the compensation is granted basing on amended provision of law. Therefore, the argument of Insurance Company is not sustainable. Therefore, this Court finds that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- within one month from the date of the order, along with interest at the rate of 6%, till the date of deposit. On such deposit petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accorded on it. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73