- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461722016 NC: 2026:KHC:43774 MFA No. 7456 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. 7456 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX, NO. 144, M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY C.K. PARIMALA …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GEETHA RAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. DEVARAJ K.R S/O RAJANAIAK, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO. E-90/5, AMRUTHAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 062 PERMANENT ADDRESS NO. 52, KASHIPURA, DODDAMALLAPURA POST, MALLAPURA, CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE - 577 218. 2. MR. BALA NAIK A G S/O GANGANAIK MAJOR, R/AT NO. 63, MUNIYAPPA NEW BUILDING, 3RD CROSS, MATHRU LAYOUT, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461722016 NC: 2026:KHC:43774 MFA No. 7456 of 2016 YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE, SRI. D S SRIDHAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O DTD: 29.01.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS H/S) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 17.8.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1971/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCPAL MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,55,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A ON RS.1,30,000/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 05.08.2026 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 17.08.2016 passed in MVC No.1971/2015 on the file of the Member Prl.Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bangalore. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. The ranks of - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461722016 NC: 2026:KHC:43774 MFA No. 7456 of 2016 the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The injured claimant met with an accident on 09.05.2015, at about 1.15 p.m. on B.B.Road, Bangalore, and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs.1,30,000/- from the date of petition till realization. 4. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company mainly contending that as per the charge sheet under Ex.P2, the injured was driving the offending vehicle under the influence of alcohol and the Insurance Company produced certificate of examination issued by FSL and marked under Ex.R4. It is further contended that the Tribunal observed that author of the document is not examined and not considered the said document. The insured appeared and pleaded guilty before the Traffic Court and had paid fine admitting the guilt and the said document is marked as Ex.R3, but it was not considered. As per the records, insured - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461722016 NC: 2026:KHC:43774 MFA No. 7456 of 2016 was driving the vehicle under intoxication and it led to the accident and he had consumed alcohol more than allowable limits and also the interest rate granted by the Tribunal is excessive and thus, requested to set aside the order. 5. The manner of accident shows that while the petitioner was discharging his duties as a police constable, a car bearing Reg.No.DL-2-CR-9426 came from Mekri Circle in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner. Charge sheet is filed against the driver of the car. The Tribunal observed that in the written statement, Insurance Company has not taken the defence that driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and only at the time of adducing the evidence, RW1 stated that driver was driving the vehicle under the intoxication and it is in violation of terms of the policy. The policy was in existence as on the date of accident and there is no condition in the policy regarding intoxication. It is observed by the Tribunal that Insurance Company sent notice to the driver and it was returned with an endorsement 'insufficient address' under Ex.R5. It is also observed that they have not produced any - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461722016 NC: 2026:KHC:43774 MFA No. 7456 of 2016 certificate issued by Forensic Science Department as mentioned in the affidavit. They marked Ex.R4 through RW1. Mere marking of the document is not sufficient and they have not examined the Investigating Officer. They relied upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dakshi and others reported in 1990 ACJ 827 wherein, it was held when there is no pleading in the written statement, the evidence adduced cannot be looked into. So, the issue raised by the appellant herein was already discussed by the Tribunal at length and answered. The appellant has not taken the said plea at the time of inception in the written statement and the document filed by them is not marked. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the charge sheet and filed a copy of the same in English, in which it was specifically mentioned that accused was under intoxication as per FSL report. They examined RW1 on their behalf and also marked R1 to R5, which includes Ex.R4/Certificate of Examination issued by FSL. Under Ex.R1, - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461722016 NC: 2026:KHC:43774 MFA No. 7456 of 2016 the terms and conditions of the policy applied and clause 2 (c) reads as follows. “The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of:- Any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving the vehicle with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs Ex.R2 is the copy of the notice given by Insurance Company. Ex.R3 is the order sheet of the Tribunal in which it was stated that the charge sheet is filed against the petitioner under Sections 279, 338 and 185 of MV Act. Ex.R4 is the FSL report, in which it was stated that the percentage of alcohol in blood is 96.75 mg for 100 ml and in the urine it was 134.0 mg per 100 ml. Further, learned counsel for the Insurance Company also relied upon the citation in case of MFA No.2300/2016 C/w MFA No.5820/2016 dated 09.10.2025 in case between Smt.Rathnamma Vs. HDFC ERGO General and Anr., in which it was held as below, “Insurance was not liable to pay any compensation if an accident was caused because of the rider being under the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461722016 NC: 2026:KHC:43774 MFA No. 7456 of 2016 influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs as provided in clause (b) of the Insurance policy.” 7. Further it is stated that the manner of accident shows that the petitioner on 09.05.2015 was discharging his duties as a police constable, at that time, car bearing Reg.No.DL-2-CR- 9426 came in a rash and a negligent manner and dashed the petitioner. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. After filing of the claim petition, notices were issued to R1 and R2. Though they appeared before the court, R1 did not file the written statement and R2 filed written statement stating that the complaint and FIR were lodged belatedly. Insured vehicle was falsely implicated. The respondent/owner has not complied statutory obligation under 134C of the MV Act and police have not complied the provisions of 158 (6) of the MV Act. The driver of the car was not having valid and effective driving licence. The owner of the car was not having RC, tax card or the fitness certificate, as on the date of accident. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the plea of driver was not taken in their grounds, filed at the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461722016 NC: 2026:KHC:43774 MFA No. 7456 of 2016 earliest point of time. Therefore, now they cannot raise the said issue. But the fact is that he is bound by the record, in the charge sheet, it was clearly mentioned and it was supported by FSL report. The driver of the car has driven it in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of alcohol and it is in clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, this Court finds that Insurance Company is liable for pay and recovery. Learned counsel for respondent relied upon the citation in the order passed by this court in MFA No.4090/2016 dated 3.07.2025 in case of The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Sri.Pratik Kumar Tripathy, if it is a case of drunk and drive Insurance company is entitled for pay and recovery wherein it was held as below, “In the present case also, the rider of the motorcycle was under the high influence of alcohol. Therefore, it is the liability of the owner to pay the compensation. Since the policy of the insurance is not in dispute, it is the duty of the Insurer to satisfy the claim of third party and it is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.” 9. Therefore, Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.1,55,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., and on - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461722016 NC: 2026:KHC:43774 MFA No. 7456 of 2016 such deposit petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and award of the Tribunal. Insurance company is directed to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72