CHANDRAVVA W/O MUTTAPPA UPPAR, vs VITHAL P PIDAI,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16901
MFA No. 24404 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020143762013



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24404 OF 2013 (MV)


BETWEEN:

1. SMT. CHANDRAVVA W/O MUTTAPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MANTUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM
DISTRICT. BELGAUM.

2. KUMARI. CHAITRA D/O MUTTAPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MANTUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM
DISTRICT. BELGAUM.

3. KUMARI. DEEPA D/O. MUTTAPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MANTUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM
DISTRICT. BELGAUM.
(SINCE PETITIONER NO. 2 & 3 ARE MINOR, THEIR
MOTHER PETITIONER NO. 1 REPRESENT THEM)

4. SMT. BHIMAVVA W/O RANGAPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MANTUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM,
DISTRICT. BELGAUM.
…APPELLANTS










Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Date:
2026.10.13
15:32:30
+0530
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR

(BY SMT. GEETHA K M @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16901
MFA No. 24404 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020143762013


AND:

1. SHRI. VITHAL P PIDAI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KATAKBHAVI, TALUK RAIBAG,
DISTRICT BELGAUM.
(OWNER OF BAJAJ XCD 125-ES
MOTORCYCLE BEARING REG. NO.
KA-22/TRE-3028 UNDER CHASSISS
NO. MD 2D SJ BZZ PWH-46034 AND
ENGINE NO. JAMBPH 46980)

2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MUJAWAR ARKED CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM.
(INSURER OF BAJAJ XCD 125 - ES
MOTORCYCLE BEARING REG. NO.
KA-22/TRE-3028 UNDER CHASSISS
NO. MD 2D SJ BZZ PWH-46034 AND
ENGINE NO. JAMBPH 46980, COVERING
PERIOD FROM 27-02-2009 TO 26-02-2009 UNDER
COVER NOTE NO. PC - 0611582323)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R R MANE, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN MVC
421/2009 DATED 02.08.2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, BELGAUM COURT
AND AWARDS A REASONABLE COMPENSATION IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16901
MFA No. 24404 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020143762013


ORAL JUDGMENT


1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred as ‘MV Act’ for short), seeking to
set aside the Judgment and Award passed in MVC
No.421/2009, by the Court of the III Additional Senior
Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belgaum (hereinafter
referred as ‘the Tribunal’, for short) dated 02.08.2013.

2. The claimants had filed claim petition under Section
163-A of the MV Act. The fact of accident and death of
the rider of the motorcycle are not in dispute.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, held that the death
of the deceased Muttappa was due to a road traffic
accident that occurred on 15.02.2009. After relying
upon various judgments, including the judgments in
Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16901
MFA No. 24404 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020143762013


1
Co. Ltd . and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita
2
and Others , the Tribunal held that the deceased
having stepped into the shoes of the owner, had
caused the accident due to his rash and negligent
driving. It also held that there was violation of policy
conditions, as the deceased had no valid driving
licence. The Tribunal finally dismissed the MVC
petition filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that the
accident occurred between the night of 14.02.2009
and morning of 15.02.2009, which led to the
unfortunate death of 32 year old rider of the
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/TRE-3028.
He left behind his wife and three minor children. The
Tribunal has not considered the same. Further
arguments advanced were that since the claim
petition is filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act, a

1

2009 ACJ 2020
2
2012 (1) TAC 234 (S.C),

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16901
MFA No. 24404 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020143762013


fixed income of ₹40,000/- ought to have been taken
by the Tribunal, and accordingly compensation ought
to have been awarded to the claimants. However, the
Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition.

5. Per contra , learned counsel for the Insurance
Company-respondent No.2, argued that the deceased
was riding the motorcycle at the time of accident and
had, therefore, stepped into the shoes of the owner.
Hence, he was not a third party to the Insurance
Company. Therefore, as per the judgment in
Ningamma’s case (supra), the claimants are not
entitled to compensation. Further, it is also argued by
learned counsel that, if the accident has occurred due
to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by
its rider, in order to saddle the liability on the
Insurance company he should have possessed valid
driving license. However, the deceased had no valid
driving licence, and hence, there was violation of the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16901
MFA No. 24404 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020143762013


policy conditions. Therefore, on this ground also, the
claimants are not entitled for compensation.

6. The short question here is whether the deceased was
a third party to the Insurance Company or not.
Admittedly, the deceased was a borrower of the
motorcycle, and while riding the same, he met with an
accident resulting in his death. It is relevant to note
here the judgment in the case of Ningamma and
Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein,
at paragraph 19, the issue was elaborately discussed
as follows:
“19. We have already extracted Section 163A
of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the
said provision would make it explicitly clear
that persons like the deceased in the present
case would step into the shoes of the owner of
the vehicle. In a case wherein the victim died
or where he was permanently disabled due to
an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor
vehicle in that event the liability to make
payment of the compensation is on the
insurance company or the owner, as the case
may be as provided under Section 163A. But if
it is proved that the driver is the owner of the
motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not
himself be a recipient of compensation as the
liability to pay the same is on him. This

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16901
MFA No. 24404 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020143762013


proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of
Section 163A of the MVA. Accordingly, the
legal representatives of the deceased who
have stepped into the shoes of the owner of
the motor vehicle could not have claimed
compensation under Section 163A of the
MVA.”

7. Therefore, it is clear that the owner could not himself
be a recipient of the compensation, as the liability to
pay the same would be on him. The above mentioned
position of law was followed in the case of
Ramkhiladi and Others v. United India Insurance
3
Company and Others , wherein it is held that to
maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the MV Act,
the deceased/claimant has to be a third party.

8. Another point raised by learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company is that, if the owner
or borrower of the vehicle did not possess a valid
driving licence and the accident was due to his
negligence, he or his legal heirs would not be entitled
to compensation. In this regard, learned counsel relied

3
2020 ACJ 627

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16901
MFA No. 24404 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020143762013


upon the judgment in the case of Beli Ram v. Rajinder
4
Kumar and Ors . , wherein it was held at paragraph 18
as follows:
“18. The Delhi High Court in Tata AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Akansha and Ors.
MANU/DE/0612/2015: (2015) 2 TAC 52 found
that the driving licence having expired led to the
natural finding that there was no valid driving
licence on the date of the accident. The initial
onus was discharged by the insurance company
in view of the licence not being valid on the date
of the accident. The onus, thereafter, shifted to
the owner/insured to prove that he had taken
sufficient steps to ensure that there was no
breach of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy. Since no evidence had been led
in this behalf, a presumption was drawn that
there was willful and conscious breach of the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy.”


9. Since the deceased had no valid driving license, there
was violation of policy conditions. Hence, under
Section 163-A of the MV Act, the claimants are not
entitled to compensation on this ground as well.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court
proceeds to pass following:

4

2020 (6) ALD 1

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16901
MFA No. 24404 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020143762013


ORDER

i. The appeal is dismissed.

ii. The judgment and award dated 02.08.2013
passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT, Belgaum in MVC No.421/2009
is consequently confirmed.


Sd/-
(USHARANI)
JUDGE


gab
CT:CNB
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29