Karnataka High Court
Danappa S/O. Kubappa Lamani vs Shivanand S/O. Shivalingappa Yadwad on 1 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2295
MFA No. 21742 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.21742 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
DANAPPA S/O. KUBAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE (NOW NIL),
R/O. CHANNAPAUR TANDA,
TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHETAN PATIL, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. S.S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVANAND S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA YADWAD,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. BATAKURKI, TQ: RAMDURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA-24/H-3877)
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Digitally signed NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAMDEV GALLI,
SAROJA
HANGARAKI Date:
2024.02.19
BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
15:54:43 (POLICY NO.602605/31/07/6200003233 VALID FROM
+0530
26/1/08 TO 25/1/09)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S.ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS M.F.A FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:11-01-2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.140/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, MACT-VIII, BADAMI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED
U/SEC.163-A OF MV ACT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2295
MFA No. 21742 of 2013
THIS M.F.A, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Chetan Patil and Sri.Shivaraj S. Balloli and
Sri.Rajasheakar S. Arani, learned counsel for the parties.
2. Appeal by the unsuccessful claimant challenging the
validity of the judgment and award passed in MVC
No.140/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Member,
MACT-VIII, Badami.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal
of the appeal are as under:
3.1. A claim petition came to be filed under Section 163A
of MV Act contending that on 08.05.2008 at about 5 p.m.
claimant being rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-
24/J-2127 was proceeding from Butakurki to Kerur and at
that juncture rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-24/H-
3877 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the motorcycle whereby he fell down and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2295
sustained injuries. Police after thorough investigation filed
charge sheet against the claimant himself.
3.2 The claim petition on contest came to be dismissed
inter alia, holding that claimant cannot take advantage of
his own wrong and claim compensation.
3.3 Relevant paragraph No.16 in the impugned judgment
reads as under:
"16. In the present case on hand as have
already stated above that the petition himself
drove his motorcycle No. KA-24/12127 who is
owner of the said motor cycle drove the same
in cash and negligent manner and dashed
against the motorcycle No.KA-24/H-3817 and
he himself caused accident and he himself is
responsible for the alleged accident. Under
such circumstance the petitioner who being
the owner of motorcycle No.KA-24/J-2127
cannot claim compensation U/sec.163 (a) of
MVA. As per afore mentioned respected ruling
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Since
the petitioner himself caused alleged accident,
the rider of the motorcycle No.KA-24/H-3877
of respondent No.1 not caused alleged
accident and the rider of motorcycle No.KA-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2295
24/H-3877 of the respondent No.1 is not
responsible for the alleged accident and under
such circumstances the petitioner cannot
claim composition from the owner of
motorcycle No.KA-24/H-3877 i.e., from
respondent No.1 and insure respondent No.2
since the rider of the motorcycle No.KA-24/H-
3877 is no way concerned and he is not
responsible for the alleged accident. But the
petitioner himself is responsible for the he
alleged accident and he himself has caused
the alleged accident by riding his motorcycle
No.KA-24/J-2127 in speed and rash and
against b negligent manner and dashed
against the motorcycle No.KA-24/H-3877
Under such circumstance the petition
preferred by the petitioner U/sec. 163-A of MV
Act is not maintainable and the petitioner is
not entitled for any compensation from the
respondent No.1 and 2. Hence I answer Issue
No.3 in the negative."
3.4 Sri.Chetan Patil, while reiterating the grounds urged
in the appeal contended that tribunal has grossly erred in
dismissing the claim petition and sought for allowing the
appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2295
3.5 Per contra, Sri.Rajashekhar Arani, learned counsel
representing the insurance company supported the
impugned judgment contending that in the absence of
payment of extra premium, owner cum rider cannot claim
compensation for his own wrong especially having regard
to the fact that charge sheet came to be filed against him.
Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
4. On careful perusal of the material on record,
especially paragraph No.16 of the impugned judgment as
referred supra, there is no merit in any one of the grounds
urged on behalf of the appellant.
5. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is dismissed.
ii) No orders as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
