Karnataka High Court
Shridhar S/O Karibasayya vs Gangamma W/O Shashidharswamy on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288
MFA No. 101458 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101458 OF 2015 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SHRIDHAR S/O. KARIBASAYYA,
38 YEARS,
R/O: MUSALAPUR,
TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.M. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O. SHASHIDHARSWAMY,
GIRIJA A. 29 YEARS,
BYAHATTI
R/O: MUSALAPUR,
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
TQ: GANGAVATHI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
NOW R/O: GANGANAL,
TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.
2. PRAKASH
S/O. SHASHIDHARSWAMY,
AGE: 8 YEARS,
3. SHIVAPRASAD
S/O. SHASHIDHARSWAMY,
6 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288
MFA No. 101458 of 2015
HC-KAR
RESPONDENT NO'S. 2 & 3 ARE MINORS
U/G OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
IE. RESPONDENT NO.1.
4. MUDIYAPPA S/O. BASAPPA NAYAK,
38 YEARS,
R/O: MUSALAPUR,
TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL.
5. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E-8, EPIP, RIICO SITAPUR,
JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.V. PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3;
MS. ANUSHA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & AWARD IN MVC.NO.21/2013 DATED
30.01.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT GANGAVATHI,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288
MFA No. 101458 of 2015
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
1. Heard Mr. A. M. Malipatil, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms.Anusha, who represents Sri.S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Though Sri.D. V. Pattar is on record for respondents No.1 to 3, learned counsel failed to make his appearance.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangavathi, in MVC No.21/2013 dated 30.01.2015. The owner of the Trax vehicle which is involved in the accident against whom liability is fixed to an extent of 80% is before this Court challenging his liability to pay compensation.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288 MFA No. 101458 of 2015 HC-KAR
3. Two claim petitions were filed basing on the accident that occurred due to the involvement of the appellant's vehicle. One claim petition, which is the subject matter of this appeal, was filed by the wife and two minor children of deceased Shasidharswamy (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased' for brevity). The second claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased. Both the claim petitions were disposed of by a common order giving a finding that the liability of the appellant is fixed at 80%. However, the appellant challenged only the order that is rendered in MVC No.21/2013.
4. The manner of happening of the accident as projected by the claimants before the Tribunal is that, on the date of the accident, while the deceased was proceeding in a Trax vehicle bearing registration No.KA-14/9902 which was being driven by respondent No.4 herein and when the vehicle was proceeding on Koppal-Kushtagi road, at that time respondent No.4 -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288 MFA No. 101458 of 2015 HC-KAR drove the vehicle in a negligent manner and at a high speed due to which the deceased was thrown away from the vehicle and the vehicle ran over his head, due to which he died on the spot.
5. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant and the deceased are own brothers. The deceased was engaged to collect fare from the passengers travelling in the vehicle. While the deceased was collecting fare from the passengers standing negligently and by hanging to the door, he himself fell down and died and thus there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. Learned counsel submits that the deceased therefore died due to his own negligence and thus the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to respondent Nos.1 to 3.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the driver of the vehicle was not holding driving licence to -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288 MFA No. 101458 of 2015 HC-KAR drive the said vehicle as on the date of accident. That apart, charge sheet was laid against the driver of the vehicle only. However, the Tribunal considering the totality of facts held that the negligence on the part of the deceased can be taken as 20% and the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as 80% and thus the order of the Tribunal is reasonable.
7. As earlier indicated, one claim petition is filed by wife and children of the deceased and another by the parents of the deceased. Common orders were rendered in both the claim petitions holding that the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is 20% and negligence on the part of the driver of the Trax is 80% and thus the appellant is liable to pay 80% of the compensation awarded.
8. So far as the claimants in other claim petition are concerned, they are none other than the parents of the appellant. May be due to that reason the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288 MFA No. 101458 of 2015 HC-KAR appellant has not challenged the award passed in favour of his parents.
9. Be that as it may, undisputedly the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding driving licence to drive the said vehicle as on the date of accident. The appellant therefore has to say why he entrusted the vehicle to a person who does not hold a driving licence that too for carrying passengers. Apart from that, after due investigation, police laid charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle only. Also the appellant, who has taken a specific plea that the deceased was negligent, did not choose to adduce any evidence to establish his version. At least the appellant did not enter into witness box to state how he is of the view that the deceased was solely negligent.
10. Considering all these facts, Tribunal rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288 MFA No. 101458 of 2015 HC-KAR deceased were at fault and the contribution of the deceased for the accident to occur is 20% and the driver of the offending vehicle is 80%. This Court therefore is of the view that there are no grounds to disturb the findings of the Tribunal that were given in the impugned order. Thus, ultimately this Court holds that the appeal lacks merits.
11. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16