Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19867
R HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4090/2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CBO-9, NO.1 & 2, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, SIDDAPURA OPP.9TH CROSS WILSON GARDEN, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.
REP. BY T.P. HUB, REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025.
BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVISHANKAR C.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI PRATIK KUMAR TRIPATHY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI S/O SRI NABAGHARA TRIPATHY, BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COUR T OF R/O NO.102, PLOT NO.3683, KARNATAKA
8TH CROSS, 13TH 'D' MAIN ROAD, HAL STAGE, DOOPANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 008.
2. SRI JAYARAMA REDDY, MAJOR S/O SRI NARAYANASWAMY, R/A NO.1043, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHANDAN B.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI K.T.GURUPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3755/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT BANGALORE, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,59,000/- WITH INTEREST @9% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
In cases of accidents involving drunken driving, while the insurer is liable to compensate third parties, it retains the right to recover amounts from the vehicle owner.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 147 and 185 - Appeal by Insurer against Tribunal's judgment awarding Rs.2,59,000/- compensation for accident injuries. The claimant, traveling on a motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries due to negligent driving and alleged permanent disability. Insurer's liability was challenged on grounds of rider being under alcohol influence. Court found that under Section 147, Insurer cannot deny liability and maintains owner's responsibility when driving under the influence. Court recognized the social implications of 'drink and drive' and affirmed the necessity for owner liability in such cases. (Paras 10-23)
(B) Liability - Owner of vehicle is liable for compensation in cases of drink and drive, with Insurer bound to settle claims but having right to recover from the owner. (Paras 19-23)
(C) Compensation - Amount upheld as just and reasonable, subject to interest adjustments. (Paras 24-25)
Facts of the case:
Claimant faced severe injuries in motorcycle accident due to negligence of rider. Tribunal ruled in favor of claimant with specified compensation. Insurer contested the ruling, citing rider’s intoxication as a defense for non-payment.
Findings of Court:
Liability established against vehicle owner despite insurer’s objections over intoxication; compensation deemed appropriate.
Issues: Whether Tribunal justifiably held the Insurer liable and what the appropriate compensation warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: Court reiterated the position that even in drunk-driving scenarios, Insurer must meet third-party liability while retaining the right to recourse against the vehicle owner.
Result: Appeal allowed in part; insurer ordered to pay awarded compensation with specified interest.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Insurer (respondent No.2) against the judgment and award dated 04.04.2016 passed by the XVI Additional judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT (SCCH-14) (for short “the Tribunal”), in MVC No.3755/2014 challenging its liability to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case of the both parties are as under:
It is the case of the claimant that on 01.07.2014 at about 11:00 P.M., while he was traveling on a motorcycle from Koramangala to Doopanahalli, he met with an accident near the Domlur flyover due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-01- EV-6999 by its rider. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to Manipal Hospital as an in- patient from 01.07.2014 to 06.07.2014. He underwent surgery and implants were fixed. He incurred substantial medical expenses amounting to Rs.5 lakhs. He further contended that he was aged about 30 years and was an employee of MTS SW3, a private firm, and earning Rs.1,05,833/- per month as salary. He has suffered permanent disability. Due to the same, he lost his job and lost his earnings. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs.
4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1, in his written statement, has admitted the ownership of the vehicle and contended that it was insured with respondent No.2-Insurer and the rider of the motorcycle was holding valid licence and denied other averments made in the claim petition.
5. Respondent No.2 admitted the policy of insurance, but denied the averments made in the claim petition. It also denied its liability to pay compensation, contending that liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and further stated that the rider of the motorcycle was under the influence of alcohol (drink and drive). With these reasons, it prays for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. On the basis of rival contentions, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.
7. The claimant to prove his claim, has examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and marked Exhibits P1 to P19. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked Exhibit R1 to R7.
8. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,59,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., and directed the respondents No.1 and 2 to pay compensation amount jointly and severally.
9. Being aggrieved by the said award, respondent No.2-Insurer has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo.
10. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1, the following questions arise for consideration:
"(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing respondent No.2-Insurer to pay the compensation? (ii) What order?"
11. I answer the above points partly in affirmative for the following:
REASONS
12. The occurrence of accident, injuries sustained by the claimant are not seriously disputed. The Tribunal, after assessment of the evidence, held issue no.1 in favour of the claimant. It is not under challenge and therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same.
13. The main contention of the Insurer is that the rider of the motorcycle was under the influence of alcohol and it was a drunk and drive case and under such circumstances, the Insurer is not liable to pay compensation. He fairly submitted that under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , the Insurer cannot dispute its liability, if the accident was caused due to drunk and drive. Although the Act does not explicitly state that, if a person drives under the influence of alcohol, in a rash and negligent manner, then it is the fault of the owner of the vehicle for ent
