Prateek Tanmay
3 min readBengaluruJul 20, 2026 04:26 PM IST
The Karnataka High Court recently significantly reduced the compensation awarded to the family of a motorcycle rider who crashed into an electric pole while driving heavily intoxicated and died. The court ruled that, since the man himself caused the crash, he is the wrongdoer, and his family cannot claim standard third-party liability damages.
Partially allowing an appeal filed by The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Justice Geetha K B stated in her July 16 order, “In the present case, the accident took place solely because of the deceased rider, and there is no dispute that he is the tortfeasor. Hence, he being the tortfeasor, is not entitled to claim compensation.”
The bench held that in accidents where the driver is at fault, any insurance liability is strictly capped by the vehicle’s Compulsory Personal Accident (CPA) coverage, which protects the owner-cum-driver. Consequently, the High Court slashed the compensation amount to a maximum limit of Rs 1 lakh.
Blood alcohol revelations
The insurance company had approached the High Court to challenge an August 28, 2017, directive from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), which had accepted a claim petition filed by Shivanand D Harikantra and others, awarding them Rs 3,44,364 for the death of one Srinivas.
According to the insurer’s case files, on February 5, 2015, Srinivas was riding a motorcycle with a pillion passenger named Sunil near the Devegowda Petrol Bunk in Kadirenahalli, Banashankari Second Stage, Bengaluru. Srinivas lost control of the vehicle and crashed directly into an electric pole erected on the footpath. He sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
Advocate Preeti Shashank, representing the insurance company, argued that Srinivas was driving under the severe influence of liquor. She presented a forensic report proving his blood alcohol content was 102.64 mg per 100 ml of blood, vastly exceeding the legal threshold.
Under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the legal limit for driving is capped at 30 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood; anything above this is a punishable criminal offence.
Story continues below this ad
The High Court clarified the boundaries of no-fault liability and said, “In the instant case, the use of the vehicle is to be examined, and actual negligence or rashness does not need to be proved.” However, if the accident victim himself is a wrongdoer, then he is not entitled to compensation unless there is explicit contractual insurance coverage, the court noted.
The bench heavily relied on the Supreme Court precedent, Ramkhiladi and Another vs United India Insurance Company and Another (2020), which affirmed that a wrongdoer cannot benefit from a third-party liability claim but remains bound to the limits of the individual insurance contract.
Though Srinivas did not own the motorcycle, the court noted that he had borrowed it with permission and thus “stepped into the shoes of the owner”.
“This court holds that the claimants are only entitled to Rs 1,00,000 and not a rupee more from the respondent/insurer.”
