- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4095 MFA No. 8092 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8092 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD, #42:1, CHANDRA COMPLEX, I STAGE, KALIDASA ROAD, V V MOHALLA, MYSORE, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, #44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560025 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PARVATI W/O LATE VASANTHUKUMAR, NOW AGED ABUOT 37 YEARS, 2. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O LATE VASANTHKUMAR, NOW AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 3. SUNIL KUMAR S/O LATE VASANTHKUMAR, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4095 MFA No. 8092 of 2014 NOW AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R1 TO R3 ARE RESIDING AT R/O CHIKKAMUDAHALLI VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK & DISTRICT-576118. 4. 4(a) MAHADEVA DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. PUTTASIDDAMMA, W/O LATE MAHADEVA, NOW AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 4(b) SMT MAHADEVI W/O RANGASWAMY, NOW AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 4(c) NANJAMANI D/O LATE MAHADEVA, NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ALL R/O NO.1143, 6TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSORE-570021 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R1-PARVATI - SD., ADVOCATE) (BY SRI. R2-PRADEEP KUMAR - SD., ADVOCATE) (BY SRI. R3-SUNIL KUMAR - SD., ADVOCATE) (BY SRI. R4(A) - PUTTASIDDAMMA - SD., ADVOCATE) (BY SRI. R4(B) - MAHADEVI - SD., ADVOCATE) (BY SRI. R4(C)- NANJAMANI- SD., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.09.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.140/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4095 MFA No. 8092 of 2014 CHAMARAJANAGARA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.50,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 17.09.2014 passed in MVC No.140/2009, by the Court of the District and Sessions judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamarajanagar, ('the Tribunal' for short), seeking to set aside the said award. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. Despite service of notice, respondent No.2 did not turn up. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. 3. One Vasanthkumar met with a road traffic accident on 22.01.2009. His wife and children filed a claim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4095 MFA No. 8092 of 2014 petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('M.V. Act' for short), claiming compensation of Rs.12,90,000/-. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from date of petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and Another Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.1, wherein it was held that when a person borrows a vehicle from its owner, he steps into the shoes of the owner and therefore a claim petition filed either under Section 163-A or under Section 166 of the MV Act is not maintainable. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that the risk of owner of the vehicle is not required to be covered under an insurance policy issued under Section 147 of the MV Act. As such, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass an 1 2009 ACJ 2020 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4095 MFA No. 8092 of 2014 award against the insurer in respect of injuries or death of the owner of the vehicle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: "8.The High Court by its judgment and order dated 08.08.2007 allowed the appeal holding that the claim petition before the Tribunal was not maintainable as there was no tort-feasor involved. It was also held that the claim Section 163 A of the Act was barred when the income of the claimant is stated to be above Rs.40,000/- per annum. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and directed the appellants herein to refund the amount of compensation to the Insurance Company." 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi and Others2, wherein it was stated as follows: "6. It is now a well settled principle of law that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. Where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof." 2 2008 ACJ 1441 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4095 MFA No. 8092 of 2014 7. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that liability under Section 163-A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle and that a person cannot be both a claimant and a recipient. Since the deceased was the deemed owner of the motorcycle, he was not required to be indemnified by the insurer. It was further held that for one's own negligence, claim petition is not maintainable either under Section 163-A or under Section 166 of the MV Act. 8. Reliance was also placed on the judgment in Oriental Insurance Company Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Jhuma Saha and Others3, wherein it was held that when the accident does not involve any other motor vehicle, the question of granting compensation under Section 166 of MV does not arise. 9. The learned counsel further relied upon the decision in Dhanraj Vs. New India Assuarance Co. 3 2007 ACJ 818 SC - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4095 MFA No. 8092 of 2014 Ltd.4, and contended that the award of Rs.50,000/- granted by the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 10. The manner of accident reveals that the deceased-Vasantkumar was riding his TVS motorcycle bearing No.KA-09-EK-6539 from Mysore to Chamarajanagar, with one Shivashankar as a pillion rider. When he reached near Nerale Gate of Nanjangud, Chamarajanagar Main Road, he moved the motorcycle to the left side of the road in order to give way to the opposite vehicle, but his motorcycle went out of control and he fell down. As a result, both of them sustained injuries, but Vasantkumar died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. 11. The above fact clearly shows that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the rider himself, who was also the owner of the motorcycle. The claim petition was filed arraying Vasanthkumar as respondent 4 2005 ACJ 1 SC - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4095 MFA No. 8092 of 2014 No.1(died) and the Insurance Company of the said motorcycle as respondent No.2. 12. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Laxmi Narain Dhut5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "9. Where the claim relates to own damage claims, it cannot be adjudicated by the Insurance Company. But it has to be decided by another forum i.e. forum created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1985 (in short the CP Act). Before the Tribunal, there were essentially three parties i.e. the insurer, insured and the claimants. On the contrary, before the consumer forums there were two parties i.e. owner of the vehicle and the insurer. The claimant does not come into the picture. Therefore, these are cases where there is no third party involved." 13. In the present case, the deceased himself was not a third party to the accident. No third-party risk was involved. Therefore, the claim petition itself was not maintainable, and the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.140/2009 dated 17.09.2014 are hereby set aside. 5 AIR 2007 SC 1414 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4095 MFA No. 8092 of 2014 14. The amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62