Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Mangal on 8 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5260
MFA No. 100068 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100068 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
B.O. NIPANI THROUGH
ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM,
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
2ND FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA,
KUSUGAL ROAD,
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580 023.
REPRESENTED BY
ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RR MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
1. SMT. MANGALA
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
W/O BHIMAPPA KHOT,
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.09 08:11:54
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
+0100
R/O: TEVARATTI,
TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. KUMAR BASAVARAJ S/O BHIMAPPA KHOT,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: TEVARATTI,
TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
3. KUMAR KIRAN S/O BHIMAPPA KHOT,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: TEVARATTI,
TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5260
MFA No. 100068 of 2014
HC-KAR
4. SMT. SHANTA W/O MARUTI KHOT,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: TEVARATTI,
TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
5. SHRI MARUTI PARASAPPA KHOT,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: TEVARATTI,
TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
6. SHRI MOHAN BABU KAMBLE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: ABBIHAL,
TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
(OWNER OF JEEP NO.KA-23/M-2428)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R2 AND R3;
SRI RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
NOTICE TO R4 AND R5- SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.09.2013 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND 6TH
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELGAUM IN
MVC NO.1897/2011 AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS
AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE COSTS, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 11.03.2026 AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5260
MFA No. 100068 of 2014
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 07.09.2013 passed
by V Additional District Judge and VI Additional MACT, Belagavi,
(‘Tribunal’, for short) in MVC no.1897/2011, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri RR Mane, learned counsel for appellant
submitted, appeal was by insurer challenging award mainly on
liability. It was submitted, as per claimants, at 5:00 p.m., on
18.05.2011, when Bheemappa Maruti Khot was travelling in Jeep
no.KA-23/M-2428 from Athani, towards Teravatti, its driver was
driving it in rash and negligent manner due to which, he lost
control and it toppled down, leading to death of Bheemappa.
Alleging loss of dependency, his wife and children filed claim
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act‘
for short) against owner and insurer of insured vehicle and
arraying parents of deceased as respondents.
3. After service of notice, only insurer appeared and
contested claim. Apart from denying age, occupation, income of
deceased, even occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent
driving of insured vehicle by its driver was also denied. It was
contended, liability of insurer was subject to insured confirming
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5260
MFA No. 100068 of 2014
HC-KAR
to terms and conditions of policy and establishing driver of
insured vehicle had valid and effective driving licence as on date
of accident etc.
4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners proves that one
Bhimmappa Maruti Khot died due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing
No.KA-23/M-2428 as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so what amount and from
whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. Claimant no.1 deposed as PW.1 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P7. Insurer did not lead oral evidence but got marked
copy of insurance policy as Ex.R1 with consent.
6. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in
affirmative and issue No.2 by allowing claim petition in part
holding claimants along with parents of deceased entitled for
total compensation of Rs.9,68,000/- with interest 8% per annum
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5260
MFA No. 100068 of 2014
HC-KAR
from date of claim till deposit. Aggrieved by same, appeal was
filed.
7. At outset, it was submitted, vehicle in question was
covered under a ‘Private Car Liability Only Policy’, not covering
risk of inmates of vehicle. It was submitted, in cross-
examination, PW.1 admitted, insured vehicle was a private Jeep
and its owner Ashok Kamble was not a relative. She admitted
that private jeeps are used to ferry passengers and that vehicle
met with accident. Said admission would establish that private
vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, which would
establish violation of terms and conditions of policy. It was
submitted, as per Circular no.IRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/073/11/2009,
dated 16.11.2009, clarified that insurers would be liable to
satisfy claims of inmates of private insured Car only if they are
not carried in vehicle for hire or reward. In support of his
contention that insurer could not be held liable, he relied on
following decisions:
i. National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Jugal Kishore and
Ors., reported in (1988) 1 SCC 626 (‘Jugal
Kishore’).
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5260
MFA No. 100068 of 2014HC-KAR
ii. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak
Singh and Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 404
(‘Tilak Singh’).
iii. National Insurance Company Ltd., v.
Balakrishnan and Anr., reported in (2013) 1 SCC
731 (‘Balakrishnan’).
iv. Sujata and Ors., v. Sharanappa and Ors.,
[2016:KHC-K:2158] (‘Sujata’).
8. It was submitted, there were two other claims arising
out of same accident registered as MVCs no.768 and 769 of
2012, wherein its award dated 10.10.2013, IV Additional District
and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT – V, Belagavi had considered
above facts and absolved liability of insurer. It was submitted,
said findings had attained finality.
9. On other hand, Sri K Anandkumar, learned counsel
for claimants and Sri Ram P. Ghorpade, learned counsel for
Owner of insured vehicle opposed Appeal. It was submitted,
there was no material to establish that deceased was travelling
in insured jeep as a fare paying passenger. Insurer had not led
evidence and mere marking of insurance policy would not suffice.
Therefore, contention of insurer about violation of terms and
conditions of policy would be untenable. Likewise, insurer had
not pleaded about pendency of other claim petitions. Therefore,
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5260
MFA No. 100068 of 2014
HC-KAR
it would be estopped from taking contention based on findings in
other awards in this Appeal.
10. Insofar as liability of insurer towards occupants, it
was submitted as held in various decisions, deceased not being
insured would be third party to contract of insurance and
therefore insurer could not avoid liability. In support of
submission, learned counsel relied on following decisions:
& Ors., [2025:INSC:867] (‘Sunita’).
ii. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Daniel, reported in
2000 ACJ 1391 (‘Deniel’).
iii. Ramesh Chand Tripathi v. Lily Joshi, reported in
2008 ACJ 785 (‘Lily Joshi’).
iv. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. William Jenifar
Ajitha and Ors., reported in 2009 ACJ 1042
(‘William Ajitha’).
v. M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sri
Raju and Ors., [2021:KHC-D:9761] (‘Raju’).
vi. Rajashree v. Ishappa Devappa Vakkalad and
Ors., [2025:KHC-D:8972] (‘Rajashree’).
11. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,
award and record.
12. In view of above, point that arises for consideration
is:
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5260
MFA No. 100068 of 2014HC-KAR
“Whether Tribunal erred in holding insurer liable
to pay compensation even when deceased was
either fare paid/gratuitous passenger in private
vehicle?”
13. From above, it is seen, this appeal by insurer is
challenging finding of Tribunal on insurer liability to satisfy
award. Said challenge is based mainly on two grounds, firstly on
ground that deceased had travelled in private vehicle as a fare
paid passenger, which would be violation of terms and conditions
of policy, and secondly, on ground that deceased being inmate of
private vehicle would not be third party and risk of inmates was
not covered on account of non payment of premium. Apart from
above, claim petitions were dismissed against insurer in
connected claims.
14. In support of rival contentions whether inmate of
private vehicle would required to be considered as a third party,
both sides have relied upon various decisions, necessitating
reference. In Jugal Kishore‘s case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme
Court, explained meaning of comprehensive policy by clarifying
that risk of insurance company would be limited to extent of
subscription of risk. In Tilak Singh‘s case (supra), where claim
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5260
MFA No. 100068 of 2014
HC-KAR
was by pillion rider on insured two wheeler, insurer sought to
avoid liability on ground of injured was gratuitous passenger in
private vehicle, referring to decision in New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Ors., reported in (2003) 2 SCC
223, held in view of Section 147 of MV Act, insurer was not
required to cover risk of gratuitous passengers in private vehicle
and would not be liable to compensation, if additional premium
to cover said risk were not contracted.
15. In Balakrishnan’s case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme
Court clarified in case of Statutory Policy i.e. ‘Act Liability Only
Policy’, insurer would not be liable to cover risk of third
party/gratuitous passengers. In Sujata‘s case (supra), same
view is reiterated.
16. In Sunita‘s case (supra), relied on by claimants,
while considering similar contention by insurer for avoiding
liability on ground of vehicle insured under ‘Act Liability Only
Policy’, in a claim by gratuitous passenger in Goods vehicle,
Hon’ble Supreme Court considered plea of ‘pay and recover’, and
referring to innumerable decisions wherein despite holding
insurer was not required to cover risk of gratuitous passengers,
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5260
MFA No. 100068 of 2014
HC-KAR
held, insurer liable to pay compensation to claimants in first
instance and thereafter recover same from insured.
17. Decisions in Daniel and Lily Joshi’s cases (supra)
holding insurer liable were considering provisions of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939. In William Ajitha‘s case (supra), Division
Bench of Madras High Court noted insured vehicle involved
wherein was primarily used by employer to ferry stopped
employees to and from place of work would be a private service
vehicle and not public service vehicle referred to in Section 147
of MV Act, rejected insurer’s challenge on liability.
18. In Raju‘s case (supra), challenge by insurer was on
ground that deceased was gratuitous passenger in private
vehicle insured with ‘Act Liability Only Policy’, learned Single
Judge of this Court held, insurer failed to prove terms and
conditions of policy as it had not led oral evidence but only got
marked insurance policy. In Rajashree’s case (supra),
passengers in hired vehicle were considered as third parties and
insurer held liable to pay compensation and thereafter recover it
from insured.
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5260
MFA No. 100068 of 2014
HC-KAR
19. As noted above, decisions in Daniel and Lily Joshi
were under provisions of earlier enactment. In Jugal Kishore’s
case, Hon’ble Supreme Court noted difference between
provisions of earlier Act and MV Act. Therefore said decisions
would not be applicable. And William Ajitha‘s case is
distinguishable on facts, as it was decided primarily on ground
that vehicle used by employer to ferry employees cannot be
considered as Public Service Vehicle but would be Private Service
Vehicle and therefore challenge by referring to Section 147 of MV
Act would not apply.
20. Further, as held in Prabhavathi & Ors. v. MD,
BMTC, reported in 2025 INSC 293, strict rules of evidence do
not apply to Motor Vehicles Accident Claims and in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd v. Premlata Shukla & Ors., reported in
2007 (13) SCC 476, it is held document cannot be accepted in
part. Lastly no ratio appears laid down in Rajashree’s case as
direction to insurer to pay and thereafter recover same from
insured is without much discussion or reasoning.
21. On other hand, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tilak
Singh as well as Balakrishnan’s cases (supra) was specifically
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5260
MFA No. 100068 of 2014
HC-KAR
dealing with challenge of liability on ground of injured/deceased
being gratuitous passengers vis-Ã -vis ‘Act Liability Only Policy’
and answered in favour of insurer. Said ratio is reiterated in
Sujata‘s case. In view of above discussion, point for
consideration is answered in affirmative. Consequently
following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed, judgment and award dated
07.09.2013 passed by V Additional District Judge
and VI Additional MACT, Belagavi, in MVC
no.1897/2011, is modified to extent of
dismissing claim petition against insurer and
holding claimants is entitled to recover
compensation from owner.
ii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to
insurer forthwith.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM/CT:VP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61