Karnataka High Court
Ganasaiyad S/O Lalasab Mareguddi vs The Andhra Oxygen Privare Limited And ... on 29 August, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4961
MFA No. 200698 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200698 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
GANASAIYAD
S/O LALASAB MAREGUDDI,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: MECHANIC,
R/O: WARD NO. 8, ITNAL GALLI,
BANAHATTI,
TALUK: JAMAKHANDI,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RENUKA 1. THE ANDHRA OXYGEN PRIVATE LIMITED,
Location: HIGH P.H. SHIRPUR H.NO. 133,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HALLUR CHAWL,
VASAVI THEATRE ROAD,
BAGALKOT - 587 101.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
1ST FLOOR, SANGAMA BUILDING,
S.S FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVASHANKAR H.MANURE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4961
MFA No. 200698 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM
PETITION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
04.01.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-XII, VIJAYAPURA IN
MVC NO.42/2018, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation as awarded in the
Judgment and award dated 04.01.2021 passed in MVC
No.42/2018 by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT
XII, Vijayapur (for short 'the tribunal').
2. The facts leading to filing of the claim petition are
that, on 11.07.2017 at about 22.00 hours, the
appellant/claimant was riding the motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-29/J-8954 and when he was near Ashok
Yamaha Showroom, on Mudhol-Jamakhandi road, at that
time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-29/9240 was
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4961
HC-KAR
wrongly parked in the middle of the road and there was no
parking indicators, no fencing stones or any other indicating
article for parking the vehicle. The motorcycle of the
appellant/claimant dashed to the parked lorry resulting in
the accident, due to which the appellant/claimant sustained
fractural injuries. The tribunal awarded global compensation
of Rs.30,000/- and fixed contributory negligence on the
appellant/claimant at 50%. The said finding of the tribunal
has been challenged in the present appeal by the claimant.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant,
learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned counsel
for the respondent No.2-Insurance company.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that, the lorry bearing registration No.KA-29/9240 was
parked in the middle of the road and there was no parking
indicators or any indicating material, and due to night hours,
the appellant/claimant could not see the said parked lorry
due to flash lights of oncoming vehicles from the opposite
direction, has resulted in the accident. There is no negligence
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4961
HC-KAR
on the part of the appellant/claimant who was the rider of
the motorcycle. Even though, there is no driving licence of
the driver of the parked lorry, has no way concerned to the
liability of the Insurance company, as it is no way concerned
for parking the lorry in the middle of the road. Therefore, the
Insurance company of the parked lorry is liable to pay the
entire compensation. He further submits that, considering
the injuries sustained, the global compensation awarded in a
sum of Rs.30,000/- is on lower side and the
appellant/claimant is entitle to compensation in a sum of
Rs.50,000/-.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-
Insurance company would contend that, the
appellant/claimant was also not having valid driving licence
at the time of the accident and he also contributed for the
accident and the charge-sheet has been filed against him
also and considering the same, the tribunal has rightly held
that, the appellant/claimant has attributed 50% negligence
and rightly awarded the compensation. He submits that,
there are no grounds for allowing the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4961
HC-KAR
6. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has
perused the Judgment and other materials placed on record.
7. On perusal of the spot panchanama Ex.R.5 and
two photographs at Ex.R.6, it is clear that, the lorry bearing
registration No.KA-29/9240 was parked in the middle of the
road during night hours. The accident occurred at about
10.00 p.m. On perusal of the spot mahazar also, it is clear
that, there were no parking indicators or any signal
indicating parking of the lorry on the road. Considering the
same, there is total negligence on the part of the driver of
the lorry who has parked the lorry in the middle of the road,
during night hours. Due to flash lights of oncoming vehicles
from opposite direction, the appellant/claimant who is the
rider of the motorcycle could not see the parked lorry in the
middle of the road and dashed his motorcycle to the lorry.
Therefore, there is total negligence on the part of the lorry
driver parking the lorry in the middle of the road which led to
the accident.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4961
HC-KAR
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Archit
Saini and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited and others, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 365, has
held that, there is total negligence on the part of the vehicle
which was parked in the middle of the road and the
claimants are entitle to entire compensation from the owner
and Insurer of the said lorry.
9. The driver of the parked lorry was having driving
licence to drive a motor vehicle other than transport vehicle
as on the date of the accident. Ex.R3 indicates the same and
it also indicate that, he has taken licence to drive transport
vehicle on 02.08.2017 i.e. after the date of accident. It is not
the case that the driver of the parked lorry was not holding
driving licence at the time of the accident. The accident
occurred when the lorry was parked in the middle of the road
and therefore, it does not violate any of the policy
conditions. Therefore, the Insurer of the parked lorry is liable
to pay the entire compensation. The appellant/claimant has
sustained fracture of left zygomatic arch, orbital floor, lateral
wall, posteolateral walls of left maxiallary sinus, left
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4961
HC-KAR
maxillary hemosinus, fracture of nasal bone, nasal septum,
cribriform plate, lamina papyaracea, walls of bilateral
maxillary sinuses, bilateral frontal, maxillary hemosinus and
other injuries to all over the body and taken treatment and
spent an amount of Rs.2,843/- towards medical expenses.
Considering the said aspect the award of compensation in a
sum of Rs.30,000/- by the tribunal is on lower side.
Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitle to compensation
in a sum of Rs.50,000/-.
10. In view of the above, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in-part;
(ii) The appellant/claimant is entitle to total
compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization;
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4961
HC-KAR
(iii) The respondent No.2-Insurance
company is liable to pay entire award amount with
interest;
(iv) The respondent No.2-Insurance
company shall deposit the entire award amount
with interest within a period of six weeks from this
day, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the
rate of 9% per annum.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
SVH
