- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010380452014 NC: 2026:KHC:42524 MFA No. 6674 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6674 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.T.VENKATEGOWDA S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 2. SMT. A. S. SUSHEELAMMA, W/O VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 3. MASTER THANUSH @ THANISH, S/O LATE NAVEEN, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, MINOR - REP. BY HIS GRAND FATHER APPELLANT NO.1 AS GUARDIAN. ALL ARE R/AT NO. 599/30, SRI. KRISHNA NIVAS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 086. ALSO AT G.C. ARADHYA COMPOUND, OPP. KRISHNA THEATRE ROAD, K.R. EXTENSION, TUMKUR - 572 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010380452014 NC: 2026:KHC:42524 MFA No. 6674 of 2014 AND: 1. THE ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INSURANCE ZINITH HOUSE, KESHAVARAO KHADE MARG, MHALAKSHMI, MUMBAI - 400 034, MAHARASHTRA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. SMT. VIDHYA B.S., W/O LATE NAVEEN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.559/30, 3RD CROSS, SRI KRISHNA NIVAS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 086. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. NAGARAJA S, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 PRAYING TO ALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M.V.C. NO. 480/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, AT TUMKUR AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2013 BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION, AS CLAIMED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010380452014 NC: 2026:KHC:42524 MFA No. 6674 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the order dated 11.01.2013, passed in MVC No.480/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Tumkur. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the both sides. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The manner of the accident shows that respondent No.1-wife of the deceased is the owner of the Indica car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MD-8847. On 11.03.2010, her husband was driving the car and she was also travelling in the said car. When they reached near Tiptur, C.R.Patna road, her husband driven car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the roadside tree. As a result, the accident occurred and her husband/Naveen died. The parents of the deceased and son filed a claim - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010380452014 NC: 2026:KHC:42524 MFA No. 6674 of 2014 petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/. But the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/claimants preferred this appeal and mainly contended that respondent No.1/insurer had filed I.A.No.1 before the Tribunal, which came to be allowed, on the ground that liability of the insurance company is only to indemnify the insured against the claims made by third parties. In this case, the accident occurred due to the negligence of her husband and the appellants/claimants are not third parties. As such, the application filed by the insurer was allowed. 5. The appellants/claimants have also filed W.P.No.41411/2014 against the order of I.A.No.1. But the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellants had an alternative remedy provided under Section 173 of the Act. In an order dated 17.07.2025, the appellants sought permission to withdraw the claim - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010380452014 NC: 2026:KHC:42524 MFA No. 6674 of 2014 petition, with liberty to file a fresh petition under Section 163A of the MV Act. The appellants filed a memo, but the said memo was rejected as not maintainable, on the ground that the appellants have to file an appropriate application. 6. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 11.03.2010 and the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the MV Act. Instead of altering the provision of law at the earliest point of time, the appellants kept quiet all these years and now, in an appeal filed in the year 2014, they sought for permission to withdraw the same and file a fresh application under Section 163A of the MV Act, this amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law. In a case of accident, it is for the claimants to prove the manner of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and rash and negligence driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In this case, respondent No.1/wife was travelling in a car, which was driven by her husband. As the insurance policy covers the risk of third parties, the Tribunal had dismissed - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010380452014 NC: 2026:KHC:42524 MFA No. 6674 of 2014 the claim petition long back and the appeal against the said order was also filed in the year 2014. The appellants have now intended to modify the claim petition at a belated point of time. Therefore, this Court finds that there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16