Sri. Sudakar Vs Sri. Abdul Asharf

SRI MOHAMMAD ARMAN AMMEN H R S/O RAFFI AHAMMAED JAN AGED MAJOR HARMAN MANJIL, HOSALINE ROAD INFRONT OF LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA SCHOOL HASSAN (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE REG. No.KA-21-S-5607)

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2-ABDUL ASHRAF SERVED SMT. S DHANALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.12.2022 PASSED IN MVC No.1114/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,26,301/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION INCLUDING THE INTERIM COMPENSATION IF ANY PAID.

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:35278 MFA No. 2594 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 3959 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

IN MFA No. 3959/2023

¶34

BETWEEN:

¶35

SRI SUDAKAR S/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O GANIGARA BEEDI HASSAN NAGAR HASSAN.

¶36

...APPELLANT

¶37

(BY SRI SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

SRI ABDUL ASHARF S/O IBRAHIM HAJJI R/O MULIYADAK HOUSE VALMURGU VILEZ PUTTUR.

¶40

MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1^ST STAGE, KRUTHIKA ARCADE N R CIRCLE, HOLENARASIPURA ROAD HASSAN.

¶41

SRI MOHAMMAD ARMAN AMEEN H R S/O RAFFI AHAMMED JAN HARMAN MANJIL, HOSALINE ROAD INFRONT OF LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA SCHOOL HASSAN.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI H C BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O DTD. 19.6.2023 NOTICE TO R1 & R3 D/W)

¶44

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.12.2022 PASSED IN MVC No.1114/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35278 MFA No. 2594 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 3959 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶48

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶50

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶51

MFA No.2594/2023 is filed by the insurer challenging

¶52

its liability to pay the compensation awarded and MFA No.3959/2023 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in judgment and award dated 22.12.2022 passed in MVC No.1114/2019 by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan.

¶53

The claimant made the claim petition for injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 20.03.2019 contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the bike bearing Regn.No.KA21-S-5607 by its rider. The claimant was a pillion rider on

¶54

the said bike. The claimant contended that the said bike

¶55

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35278 MFA No. 2594 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 3959 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

has been insured with Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd,

¶58

Hassan. The Tribunal after recording the evidence on record, appreciated the evidence, assessed the

¶59

compensation and awarded compensation under various

¶60

heads as under:

¶61

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
01.	Pain and sufferings	55,000.00
02.	Medical expenses	1,17,301.00
03.	Diet food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges and other incidental expenses	5,000.00
04.	Loss of future income on account of permanent disability	Nil
05.	Loss of income during laid up period	9,000.00
06.	Towards loss of amenities and life comforts	40,000.00
	Total	2,26,301.00

¶62

The Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 6% p.a.

¶63

from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal held that Ex.R2 is a package policy and therefore, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant who was a

¶64

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35278 MFA No. 2594 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 3959 of 2023

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

pillion rider on the insured vehicle. The insurer has challenged its liability and the claimant has filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶67

Heard learned counsel for the insurer and learned counsel for claimant.

¶68

Learned counsel for the insurer would contend that

¶69

the official of the insurer has been examined as RW.1 and produced Ex.R1 – policy contending that it is an act policy and insurer is not liable to pay the compensation to the injuries sustained by him as he was a pillion rider on the insured vehicle. He further contended that a document has been confronted to RW.1 and in his cross – examination by respondent No.3/owner of the insured vehicle he admitted that it is issued pertaining to motor cycle KA-21-S-5607 and therefore, it is marked as Ex.R2. He has also admitted that in that policy it is mentioned as package policy. He submits that premium collected by the insurer in both the documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 is same.

¶70

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35278 MFA No. 2594 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 3959 of 2023

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

There is no premium collected for own damage. The premium collected is only for basic liability and compulsory PA cover to owner/driver and therefore, the policy does not cover the pillion rider on the insured vehicle. He further submits that heading of the said Ex.R2 has been changed/altered to make a claim against the insurer and therefore, further evidence has to be lead by the parties to ascertain the genuineness of Ex.R2. He submits that for that purpose the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal.

¶73

Learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the claimant being pillion rider is entitled to make claim against the insurer only if the policy is a package policy. He fairly admits that if it is an act policy, the claimant has no claim against the insurer and his claim is only against the owner of the vehicle. He submits that whether Ex.R2 which is confronted by the owner of the vehicle to RW.1 in his cross-examination, it is for respondent No.3/owner who has to say what is the source of Ex.R2. He further submits that he will urge the grounds

¶74

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:35278 MFA No. 2594 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 3959 of 2023

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

which is sought in the appeal seeking enhancement before

¶77

the Tribunal.

¶78

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has

¶79

perused the judgment, award and trial Court records.

¶80

The claimant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident when he was traveling as a pillion rider on the bike bearing Regn.No.KA-21-S-5607 owned by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has contended that his motor cycle is insured with respondent No.2. The official of respondent No.2 has been examined as RW.1. RW.1 in his chief examination has specifically stated that the policy issued to the motor cycle of respondent No.3 i.e. KA-21-S5607 is a liability only policy and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation to the pillion rider and has produced policy at Ex.R1. On perusal of Ex.R1, it is

¶81

“A” Policy for Act Liability Insurance (Two Wheeler) – Policy Schedule, bearing policy No.140821923480000387. There is no premium paid towards own damage. Ex.R2 is

¶82

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:35278 MFA No. 2594 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 3959 of 2023

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

a document marked in the cross-examination of the owner

¶85

when it is confronted to him. When it was confronted he has stated that the said policy is issued pertaining to motor cycle bearing No.KA-21-S-5607. He has also admitted that in that policy there is mention that it is a package policy. He has also admitted that if it is a comprehensive policy, the pillion rider is also covered. He has also admitted that there is no difference in Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. He has denied of having collected package premium for issue of Ex.R2. On perusal of Ex.R2 on the top it is mentioned “Reliance Two Wheeler Package Policy – Certificate cum Liability Policy Schedule” and policy No.140821923480000387. In Ex.R2 also there is no premium paid towards own damage. On perusal of Ex.R1 and R2, the premium paid is Rs.1605/-.

¶86

The liability of the insurer is dependant on whether

¶87

the policy issued is comprehensive policy or not. If the policy issued is an act policy, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant who is a pillion rider on

¶88

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:35278 MFA No. 2594 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 3959 of 2023

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

the insured vehicle. Merely because RW.1 has admitted that Ex.R2 is a policy issued to the two wheeler bearing Regn.No.KA-21-S-5607, the Tribunal has saddled liability on the insurer. Considering the said aspect, further opportunity is to be given to both the parties to lead evidence to ascertain whether the policy issued is an act policy or package policy. Therefore, for the said aspect the matter requires to be remanded to the Tribunal. Both the parties namely the claimant, respondent No.2 – insurer and respondent No.3 – owner are at liberty to lead evidence with regard to insurance policy Ex.R1 and R2. The claimant is also entitled to put forth his claim/contention for award of more compensation than determined by the Tribunal.

¶91

In view of the above, the following:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

(i) Both the appeals are allowed in part.

¶94

(ii) The finding of the Tribunal insofar as liability of insurer to pay the award amount passed in MVC No.1114/2019 by the Additional

¶95

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:35278 MFA No. 2594 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 3959 of 2023

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT, Hassan is set-aside.

¶98

(iii) The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to give opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence and give finding on whether the policy issued (either Ex.R1 or Ex.R2) is an act policy or package policy.

¶99

(iv) The claimant can also seek for enhancement of compensation already determined by the Tribunal.

¶100

(v) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 07.08.2026.

¶101

(vi) Registry is directed to return the trial Court records with a copy of this order to the Tribunal so as to reach on or before 07.08.2026.

¶102

Sd/-

¶103

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶104

DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 Ct.sm

Sri. Sudakar v. Sri. Abdul Asharf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sudakar v. Sri. Abdul Asharf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjitha H H Vs Santhosh B

Sri. Shivaraj. K. S. Vs M/S. Rapid Carrier Pvt. Ltd.

The Divisional Controller Vs Smt Lakshmamma

C S Ramesh Vs Divisional Controller K S R T C

M/S Medi Scope Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr Nayeem Uddin Khan

The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Sri Sudakar