THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs SUKUR S/O P SUFI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61399
MFA No. 4195 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010233062014



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4195 OF 2014(MV-I)


BETWEEN:

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED
(INCORPORATED IN INDIA),
A SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION
OF INDIA,
HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE
AT ORIENTAL HOUSE,
P B NO.7037, A-25/27,
ASAF ALI ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110 002 &

HAVING THEIR BRANCH OFFICES
AT VARIOUS PLACES IN INDIA
INCLUDING ONE AT
POST BOX NO.41,
OPPOSITE TOWN HALL,
CHIKPET,
MADIKERI.

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
#44/45,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 025.
…APPELLANT









Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

(BY SRI. VIJAYA PHANEENDRA T.B., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY., ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61399
MFA No. 4195 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010233062014


AND:

1. SUKUR,
S/O P.SUFI,
NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/A HARID, DASAVALA,
MADIKERI,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.

2. V. ASHRAF, MAJOR,
SHETTY FORD PRODUCTS,
#22, INDUSTRIAL,
MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 27.05.2019)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.3.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.147/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT,
MADIKERI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,04,223/- FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 22.03.2014
passed by Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Madikeri, in M.V.C.
No.147/1999, this appeal is filed.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61399
MFA No. 4195 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010233062014


2. Sri Vijaya Phaneendra T.B., learned counsel
appearing for Sri A.N.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for
appellant submitted that this appeal was by Insurer challenging
finding of Tribunal on liability.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal as per claimants
were that, at 3:45 p.m. on 17.09.1998 when claimant was
travelling in autorickshaw bearing No.KA-12-3426 near Senior
College Road at Madikere, its driver drove it in rash and
negligent manner, lost control and due to which, it capsized
causing injuries on claimant. Despite treatment at hospitals in
Madikeri and Mangalore, he did not recover fully and sustained
permanent physical disability/loss of earning capacity. Claiming
compensation for same under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, he filed claim petition against owner and insurer of
autorickshaw.
4. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all grounds, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
5. Claimant along with another deposed as PWs.1 and
2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P278. Dr.Shridhar Shetty,
Dr.R.N.Sujeer and Dr.K.Shashidharan were examined on

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61399
MFA No. 4195 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010233062014


commission as CWs.1 to 3 and Exs.C1 and C2 were got
marked. In rebuttal, official of Insurer deposed as RW.1 and
got marked copy of insurance policy as Ex.R1. On
consideration, Tribunal held that accident had occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of autorickshaw by its driver and
claimant was entitled for compensation assessed by it at
Rs.4,24,223/- with interest at 6% per annum and holding
owner/insurer jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
Aggrieved, present appeal was filed.
6. Sole contention urged against impugned award was
that, admittedly, accident in question occurred while claimant
was travelling in it. Vehicle involved was a Goods autorickshaw
with seating capacity of only one. Since police investigation
records would consistently indicate that accident occurred while
claimant was seated in cabin, same would constitute
fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy requiring
absolving of liability of insurer. Therefore, sought for allowing
appeal.
7. Sri N.Gopalakrishna, learned counsel for claimants
opposed appeal.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61399
MFA No. 4195 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010233062014


8. Heard learned counsel for appellant. Perused
impugned judgment and award and material on record.
9. From above, insurer is in appeal challenging finding
of Tribunal on liability.
10. Point that would arise for consideration is-
"Whether Tribunal was justified in holding insurer liable to pay
compensation?"
11. At outset, occurrence of accident, involving insured
vehicle and claimant sustaining injuries therein is not in
dispute. Challenge against finding of Tribunal holding insurer
liable to pay compensation is solely on ground that travel of
claimant in cabin of autorickshaw was in violation of terms and
conditions of policy and therefore, insurer could not be held
liable.
12. Ex.P1 FIR would indicate that accident occurred
while claimant was travelling in cabin of autorickshaw. Ex.P.4
copy of RC book of vehicle would indicate over writing of
seating capacity as 1+1 without any counter signature. Ex.P5
copy of insurance policy is same as Ex.R1 and Ex.R1 insurance

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61399
MFA No. 4195 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010233062014


policy issued to vehicle in question would indicate seating
capacity as '0'. However, B Register extract of vehicle in
question got marked by claimant as Ex.P277 would indicate
seating capacity as '1' including driver. Therefore, there cannot
be any dispute about seating capacity of vehicle being '1'. Since
complaint averments itself would indicate that claimant
sustained injuries while travelling in cabin of auto, violation of
policy conditions has to be implied. However, Ex.P1 would also
note that vehicle was carrying bakery goods belonging to
claimant for sale.
13. Though learned counsel for appellant has relied on
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of United India
Insurance Company Limited v. Suresh K.K. and Another
reported in (2008) 12 SCC 657 for absolving of liability of
insurer, latest decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kaminiben and others v. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited and others in SLP Civil No.21802/2023 disposed
of on 11.02.2026, after review of several earlier decisions and
taking note of fact that dominant purpose of hiring vehicle was
not for travelling but for carrying goods held Insurer liable to
pay compensation even in case of injuries sustained by

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61399
MFA No. 4195 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010233062014


gratuitous passenger but with liberty to recover it from owner.
Same would squarely apply to present case.
14. In view of above, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed-in-part .
(ii) Judgment and award dated 22.02.2014 in
MVC No.147/1999 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge and MACT, Madikeri, stands modified
holding appellant-insurer liable to pay
compensation to claimant in first instance with
liberty to recover it from insurer.
(iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal for payment, balance
compensation to be deposited before Tribunal
within six weeks.
(iv) On deposit, entire compensation is ordered
to be released in favour of claimant.

Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE

PSJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26