Karnataka High CourtInsurance LawTransport, Maritime, and Aviation Law

Two Motorbike Crash Victims Get ₹25,000 More Each, While Karnataka HC Leaves Bus Owner Solely Liable After Premium Cheque Bounced

JAYARAJ KRISHNAMOORTHIv.MR NITHI KUMAR

Two Motorbike Crash Victims Get ₹25,000 More Each, While Karnataka HC Leaves Bus Owner Solely Liable After Premium Cheque Bounced. JAYARAJ KRISHNAMOORTHI vs MR NITHI KUMAR. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in absolving the insurer of liability.

The court held

Both appeals were allowed in part.

It also directed

The insurer’s exoneration was left undisturbed, and the owner alone remained liable.

Each claimant was awarded an additional ₹25,000, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition until realisation.

The owner was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving the certified judgment; modified awards were to be drawn.

01Facts

On 19 December 2018, the claimants were travelling on a motorcycle when it was struck by a bus; one claimant was the rider and the other the pillion passenger.

p. 4

Both sustained injuries and sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

p. 4

The insurer contended that the premium cheque had been dishonoured, the policy cancelled, and the owner notified; the Tribunal consequently held that the policy was not in force and imposed liability on the owner alone.

pp. 6–7

It awarded ₹3,74,000 to the pillion passenger and global compensation of ₹25,000 to the rider.

pp. 6–7

The claimants appealed, challenging the insurer’s exoneration and seeking enhancement.

p. 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal erred in absolving the insurer of liability.

p. 10

ii.2. Whether the claimants in both cases were entitled to enhanced compensation.

p. 10

03Law Applied

The appeals were brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the underlying compensation claims were made under Section 166.

pp. 4, 13–14

The Court applied the Tribunal’s finding that the insurance policy was not in force because the premium cheque had been dishonoured, and did not disturb the resulting allocation of liability to the vehicle owner.

pp. 6–7, 10–11

No precedent or further statutory rule was cited in the judgment.

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173Section 166

04Reasoning

The Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s finding on insurance liability and answered the first issue in the negative.

pp. 10–11

On compensation, it considered the rider’s fractures and medical evidence and awarded an additional global sum of ₹25,000.

p. 11

For the pillion passenger, it considered the diagnosed head injuries, wound certificate, discharge summaries and 17 days of inpatient treatment, and likewise awarded an additional global sum of ₹25,000.

pp. 11–12

05Holding

Both appeals were allowed in part.

pp. 13–14

The insurer’s exoneration was left undisturbed, and the owner alone remained liable.

pp. 13–14

Each claimant was awarded an additional ₹25,000, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition until realisation.

pp. 13–14

The owner was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving the certified judgment; modified awards were to be drawn.

pp. 13–14
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

JAYARAJ KRISHNAMOORTHIvsMR NITHI KUMAR

Karnataka High Court · October 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment