IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20531 OF 2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

NAGARAJAGOUDA S/O POMPANNAGOUDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. HAGARI, BELLARY TALUK, BELLARY DIST.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. NAGAREDDY S/O SIDDAREDDY AGED MAJOR, OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-34/L 8628, R/O. PARAMADEVANAHALLI, HAGARI BELLARY TALUK AND DIST.

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SLV TOWERS, PARVATHI NAGAR, Digitally signed by YASHAVANT MAIN ROAD, BELLARY NARAYANKAR L C o O c U at R io T n O : F HIGH …RESPONDENTS KARNATAKA DHARWAD (BY SRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

BENCH Date: 2026.03.23

11:15:59 +0530 NOTICE SERVED TO R1)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18-05-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1251/2011 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-XII, BELLARY AND ETC.,.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

This is an appeal filed by the Claimant in MVC No.1251/2011 on the file of the learned MACT-XII, Ballari (for short, ‘Tribunal’), challenging dismissal of his claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘MV Act’).

2. Heard Sri Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned Counsel for Appellant and Sri R.R. Mane, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

3. It is the case of the claimant that on 26.06.2006 at about 6 p.m., when he was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-34-L-8628 along with a pillion rider by name Sri P. Raghuramarao, on Hagari-P.D. Halli Road, near PCMI Factory, the said motorcycle went off the road and dashed against the barrier of the bridge. As a result, he and the pillion rider fell down from the motorcycle and sustained injuries. In the said circumstances, the claimant maintained a petition under Section 163A of the MV Act seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the owner and the insurer of the motorcycle in question.

4. The Tribunal relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ningamma & Another Vs. United India Assurance Company Limited reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant being a wrong doer, steps into the shoes of the owner and as such, he cannot maintain a claim petition under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act.

5. The claimant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has committed grave error in dismissing the claim petition particularly when he was not the owner of the motorcycle in question and that the said vehicle was covered with a package policy.

6. In Ningamma and Another’s case (referred supra) Hon’ble Apex Court relying on decision in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., v. Rajani Devi (2008) 5 SCC 736, observed that “… In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be an employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorized to drive the said vehicle by its owner and, therefore he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. We have already extracted Section 163A of the MV Act hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that person like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. …”.

7. In the case on hand, the claimant has not stated anything about how he came in possession of the motorcycle in question except stating that Respondent No.1 was the registered owner of the said vehicle.

8. Whereas, Respondent No.1, in his objection stated that he and the claimant had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the vehicle in question, pursuant to which the claimant took delivery of the vehicle by paying consideration amount o