Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S/O Yallappa Dewanand vs Babu S/O Madiwalappa Ulavi on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899
MFA No. 100607 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101578 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100607/2014 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101578/2014 (MV)
IN MFA NO. 100607/2014:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
NO.89, S.V.R. COMPLEXES,
2ND FLOOR, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
IIND FLOOR, BELLAD BUILDING,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.ANUSHA SANGAMI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SK KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
AND:
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.04 06:18:28
+0100
1. SHRI BASAVARAJ YALLAPPA DEWANAD,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE (NOW NIL),
R/O: NEGINHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. SHRI BABU MADIWALAPPA ULAVI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NEGINHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGUAM.
(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-24/J-9138)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899
MFA No. 100607 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101578 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED
FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
20.09.2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BAILHONGAL, IN MVC
NO.1017/2010, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.101578/2014 :
BETWEEN:
SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O YALLAPPA DEWANAND,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NILL,
R/O. NEGINHAL, TQ: BAILAHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI BABU S/O MADIWALAPPA ULAVI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NEGINHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. THE MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO-89, S.V.R COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUSHA SANGAMI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SK KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2013, PASSED
IN MVC.NO.1017/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & ADDL. MACT, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899
MFA No. 100607 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101578 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 20.09.2013 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal ('Tribunal' for short) in MVC no.1017/2010, these appeals are filed.
2. Smt.Anusha Sanghami learned counsel appearing for Sri SK Kayakamath, advocate for appellant submitted, insurer's appeal was challenging finding of tribunal on liability. It was submitted, as per claimant at 04.00 p.m., on 26.12.2009, claimant was pillion rider on motorcycle no.KA- 24/J-9138 on Munavalli-Bailhongal road, when its rider was riding it in rash and negligent manner and near land of Irappa Patted, lost control and motorcycle toppled down. In accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and despite taking treatment, did not recover fully and therefore filed claim petition against owner and insurer of motorcycle under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short).
3. On appearance, wherein claim petition was opposed on all counts, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. -4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899 MFA No. 100607 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101578 of 2014 HC-KAR
4. Claimant and Dr.MS Mudakanagoudar deposed as PWs1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P50. While respondents examined 4 witnesses as RWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2 and Exs.C1 to C3.
5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver, vehicle was insured and therefore insurer was liable to pay compensation assessed by at Rs.2,30,240/- with interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by finding on liability, insurer filed MFA no.100607/2014 and claimant filed MFA no.101578/2014 for enhancement of compensation.
IN MFA no.100607/2014 :
6. Learned counsel for appellant-insurer submitted that, there was a delay of 6 days in claimant being admitted to hospital as indicated in Ex.P7-patient summary sheet. It was further submitted, even complaint was filed on 17.01.2010 after 23 days as per Ex.P1. In cross-examination, PW1 admitted that, owner of vehicle was from same village. In view of above, there was a strong suspicion of false claim petition being foisted against insurer. It was submitted, though -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899 MFA No. 100607 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101578 of 2014 HC-KAR claimant is stated to have sustained fractural injuries, there would be no justification for claimant going hospital and reporting injuries, 6 days after incident, and that too, without filing police complaint. It was submitted, merely on ground that insurer had during pendency of claim petition, filed a writ petition before this Court seeking for reopening of investigation on ground of false claim petitions being filed against insurer in collusion between claimants and investigating authorities and said writ petition was dismissed, cannot be ground of refusal by Tribunal to consider facts and circumstances in proper prospect. On said ground sought for allowing appeal.
7. On other hand, Sri HR Latur, learned counsel for respondent-claimant opposed appeal. It was submitted, insurer had earlier filed writ petition before this Court seeking for reopening of investigation in WP no.71112/2012. Same was dismissed on 30.01.2013. In view of above, petitioner's allegation of false claim stood negatived by this Court. Therefore, Tribunal was justified in rejecting such defence and passing award against insurer. On said ground sought for dismissal of insurer's appeal.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899 MFA No. 100607 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101578 of 2014 HC-KAR
8. In MFA no.101578/2014, filed for enhancement of compensation, it was submitted, as on date of accident, claimant was 38 years of age, working as agriculturist and earning Rs.5,000/- and sustained fracture of right radius and lateral epicondyle of humours, Tribunal considered Rs.5,000/- as monthly income, functional disability at 11%, and awarded Rs.50,000/- towards 'pain and suffering', Rs.6,240/- towards 'medical expenses', Rs.10,000/- each towards 'nourishment' and 'attendance/conveyance charges, Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of income during treatment period' and Rs.99,000/- towards 'loss of future income' apart from Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of amenities, future unhappiness, which were on lower side.
9. Counsel for Insurer opposed claimant's appeal.
10. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment, award and record.
11. From above, points that arise for consideration in both appeals are :
i. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding insurer is liable to pay compensation?-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899 MFA No. 100607 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101578 of 2014 HC-KAR ii. Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement as sought?
12. Point no.1 is answered in affirmative and point no.2 is answered in negative for following:
REASONS :
13. Point no.1 : At outset there is no dispute about occurrence of accident. Insurer is alleging false implication of insured vehicle as well as doubting injuries were sustained in accident caused by insured vehicle. To establish actionable negligence against insurer, claimant relied on FIR/complaint, spot panchanama, motor vehicle inspector's report, charge sheet, certified copy of order sheet in CC no.199/2010, wound certificate, summary sheet and treatment records as Exs.P1 to P50.
14. Though there is a delay of 23 days in filing complaint and delay of 6 days in claimant going to hospital after accident, in Ex.P7, history of injuries, is stated to be fall from motorcycle on 26.12.2009 at 04.00 p.m. There are no specific particulars whether claimant was rider or pillion rider. In complainant appended to FIR, accident is stated to have -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899 MFA No. 100607 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101578 of 2014 HC-KAR occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its rider and claimant being pillion rider.
15. Moreover, rider of motorcycle is arraigned for causing accident due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle and charge sheet filed. Same would be sufficient to substantiate actionable negligence. In case, insurer disputed same, it was for insurer to substantiate same by leading evidence. Mere mention that injuries were due to fall from motorcycle, would not imply that claimant was rider of motorcycle and accident was due to own negligence.
16. Normally in case of two wheelers, reference is vague with both rider and pillion rider being referred to as riders. Thus, there is some basis for Tribunal's finding about accident having occurred due to actionable negligence on account of rider of insured motorcycle. However, appellant would be justified in contending that merely on account of dismissal of writ petition, appellant would not be barred from challenging finding of Tribunal on liability, when this Court while dismissing insurer's writ petition permitted taking defence by insurer in claim petition itself. In view of above, for having -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899 MFA No. 100607 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101578 of 2014 HC-KAR taken defence and failing to substantiate same, there would be no good or sufficient grounds to interfere with findings. Point for consideration is answered in affirmative.
17. Point no.2 : On perusal of award, though it is seen, Tribunal considered notional income at Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.5,500/- as on date of accident, considering extent of disability stated by doctor-PW2 at 35% to right upper limb, and assessment of functional disability at 11% being on higher side and offset any scope for enhancement and even amount awarded towards amenities being on higher side, on overall consideration, compensation of Rs.2,30,240/- awarded by Tribunal appears just and proper leaving no scope for modification. Point no.2 is answered in negative. Consequently following:
ORDER i. Both appeals are dismissed.
ii. Judgment and award dated 20.09.2013 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal in MVC no.1017/2010 stands confirmed.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899 MFA No. 100607 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101578 of 2014 HC-KAR iii. Amount in deposit if any, in insurer's appeal is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal.
iv. Balance amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8