IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100155 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001, POLICY ISSUING BRANCH TILAKWADI, MICRO OFFICE NO.106, 1^ST FLOOR, KRISH PRIDE, OPPOSITE CONGRESS WELL, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590006, NOW R/BY THE ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE AND SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. UMAR FAROOQUE @ FAROOQ HAROON SHAPURI AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. TAILORING (PRESENT NIL), R/O. H.NO.15, NEW GANDHI NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016, Digital ly signed PRESENT R/O. C/O. MEHBOOBI NANDUKAR, by H.NO. 1067, 10^TH CROSS, SUNERI GALLI, MOHANKUMAR B SHE LAR SHAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

Location: High …RESPONDENTS Court of Karnataka, (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

Dharwad Bench THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.2374/2023 DATED 21.06.2025 ON I.A.NO.I IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.

THIS CRP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER

The present CRP is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 21.06.2025 on I.A. No.1 in MVC No.2374/2023, on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short).

2. The petitioner herein-Insurance Company is the respondent before the Tribunal and respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner/claimant No.1 before the Tribunal.

3. For convenience of reference, the parties are referred as arrayed before this Court.

4. The facts leading to filing of this petition are that:-

On 08.04.2023, respondent No.1/claimant allegedly sustained severe injuries when he lost control of his motorcycle, abruptly applied brakes, skidded, and fell on the road along with his wife. Based on this incident, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation against the petitioner–Insurance company asserting that he had obtained a package motor insurance policy with an additional premium covering a Personal Accident (PA) risk of Rs.15 lakh for himself as owner-driver. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed I.A. No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, before the Tribunal seeking rejection of the claim petition as barred by law.

5. The insurance policy placed on record expressly stipulates that claims arising under the Personal Accident (PA) cover are not adjudicable by the Tribunal, as such disputes constitute a private contractual matter between the insured and insurer, to be resolved independently and not before the Tribunal. Despite this clear contractual bar and legal position, the Tribunal erroneously rejected the petitioner’s application in I.A.

No.1 without proper appreciation on its merits.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance company would submit that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim since the Tribunal, constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the MV Act’ for short), is empowered only to adjudicate third-party claims, whereas the claimant is the registered owner-cum-rider of the very vehicle and therefore not a “third party”. His claim under the Personal Accident (PA) cover is purely contractual and not maintainable before the Tribunal under Sections 166 or 163-A of the MV Act, but lies only before a Civil Court or Consumer Forum.

7. Further, the Insurance Company, relying on Rule 253 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, contends that the Tribunal is vested with powers of a Civil Court, including the inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC and by necessary implication, the power to reject a claim at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC when the claim is ex facie barred by law. Rule 25