Ka No. 4690 of 2020 · High Court of Karnataka
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
i) The appeal is allowed
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 26.04.2014 passed in MVC No.1228/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal, is modified holding that the owner of…
Judgment
(BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE) AND:
SHRI MADIWALAPPA GOUDAPPA HITTALAMANI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: VEERAPUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.
SHRI CHAMBAPPA SHANKAREPPA SADHUNAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: VEERAPUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI,(OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE NO.KA-29/Q-1312). … APPELLANT … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH P. HUDEDAGADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26/04/2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1228/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T., BAILHONGAL, AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS INCLUDING AN ORDER OF REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9149 MFA No. 102385 of 2014 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though this appeal is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 26.04.2014 passed in MVC No.1228/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal (for short, ‘ the Tribunal’), questioning the liability fastened on it.
In the present case, claimant/respondent No.1, who was proceeding as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-29/Q-1312 from Veerapur to M.K.Hubli Sugar Factory, at that time, the rider of said motorcycle driven the same in a very rash and negligent manner and lost his control over the motorcycle and fell down on the road. Due to the said impact, the claimant/respondent No.1 sustained grievous injuries. Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9149 MFA No. 102385 of 2014 HC-KAR
Upon petition claimant/respondent No.1, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.97,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment by fastening liability on the owner and insurer of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-29/Q-1312. Admittedly, claimant/respondent No.1 was a pillion rider on the offending motorcycle. Therefore, when the insurance policy is liability only policy and the claimant was a pillion rider, hence, the risk of pillion rider is not covered under the liability only policy. The issue is squarely covered by this Court in the case of DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd., AND OTHERS VS. SHAMARAYA AND OTHERS1. Therefore, under the liability only policy, the risk of pillion rider is not covered, unless there is an evidence of payment of extra premium covering the risk of pillion rider. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and is exonerated from 1 MANU/KA/4690/2020 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9149 MFA No. 102385 of 2014 HC-KAR payment of compensation. But the owner of motorcycle alone shall pay compensation to the claimant.
Hence, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 26.04.2014 passed in MVC No.1228/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal, is modified holding that the owner of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-29/Q-1312 compensation to the claimant. iii) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. iv) No order as to cost. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: i) The appeal is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.