Karnataka High Court
Shivaraya And Ors vs Gurappa And Anr on 3 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3623
MFA No. 203341 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 203341 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVARAYA
S/O MARUTI BIJANTRI @ JADHAV,
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: NIL.
2. GEETA
W/O SHIVARAYA BIJANTRI @ JADHAV,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
3. BHAGYASHREE
W/O SUNIL BIJANTRI @ JADHAV,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN 4. SHREYA
JAMKHANDI D/O SUNIL BAJANTRI @ JADHAV,
Location: HIGH AGE: 09 YEARS,
COURT OF M/G BY APPELLANT NO.3.
KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/O: MUJAWAR GALLI,
BABALESHWAR NAKA, VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GURAPPA
S/O MALLESHWARAPPA VALASANG,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3623
MFA No. 203341 of 2023
HC-KAR
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: IBRAHIM ROZA ROAD,
SUNNED BHATTI,
VIJAYPAURA - 586 101.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
SHOP NO.2 AND 3 BASAVESHEAR COMPLEX,
MUKUND NAGAR, STATION ROAD,
VIAJAPURA - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PAYING TO ENHANCE MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND M.A.C.T-V, VIJAYAPUR AT-VIJAYAPUR IN M.V.C.
NO.956/2020 DATED 18-03-2023 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE
CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FAR BY THE
APPELLANTS HEREIN 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 RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 18.03.2023
passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V, Vijayapura
(for short, 'tribunal') in MVC no.956/2020, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Sanganabasava B.Patil, learned counsel
submitted that appeal was by claimants challenging finding of
tribunal absolving liability of insurer to pay compensation and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3623
HC-KAR
holding insured liable to pay compensation. It was submitted,
on 25.02.2020, when Sunil was rider of motorcycle reg.no.KA-
33-R-8595 at Kalebag-Hubballi Ring road, it dashed against
road side pole and fell on road. Tipper no.KA-26/6328 plying on
road ran over Sunil, leading to his death. Alleging loss of
dependency, his parents, wife and child filed claim petition
under Section 163 of Motor Vehicles Act. It was submitted, on
contest wherein claim petition was opposed on all ground,
tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.3
examined himself as PW.1. Exs.P.1 to P.8 were got marked. On
other hand, respondent-insurer examined its Law Officer as
RW.1 and RTO as RW.2. Exs.R1 to R.6 were got marked.
3. On consideration, tribunal held accident had
occurred involving insured vehicle and therefore claimants were
entitled for compensation of `5,00,000/- with interest at 6%
per annum. However, on ground that driver of tipper was not
holding valid and effective driving licence as on date of
accident, it absolved insurer from liability and held owner liable
to pay same. Aggrieved, claimants were in appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3623
HC-KAR
4. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Shivaji and Another v. Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others - [(2019) 12 SCC 395]
referring to its decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Sunil Kumar and Another - (AIR 2017 SC 5710), had held
in claim petition under Section 163(A) of MV Act, claimant
would be entitled for compensation, even if victim were himself
negligent in causing accident. In view of above, impugned
award would call for interference.
5. Sri SS Mamadapur, learned counsel for respondent
no.1 and Sri Subash Mallapur, learned counsel for insurer
would oppose appeal. It was submitted since rider of
motorcycle himself was negligent in causing accident as per
police investigation records, claimants would not be entitled for
compensation. It was also submitted, driver of Tipper did not
have driving license as on date of accident. Therefore,
discharging insurer from liability was justified.
6. Heard counsel and perused impugned judgment and
award.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3623
HC-KAR
7. From above point that would arise for consideration
is:
"Whether dismissal of claim petition against insurer on
ground that victim himself was negligent would be
justified, when claim petition was under Section 163(A) of
MV Act?"
8. From above, occurrence of accident involving
motorcycle, on which deceased Sunil was riding and tipper lorry
is not in dispute. Tipper Lorry being insured with respondent
no.2 is also not in dispute. Tribunal absolved liability of insurer
on ground that driver of Tipper Lorry was not possessing
driving license as on date of accident. In view of three judges
Bench in Shivaji's case (supra), claimant in a claim petition
under Section 163(A) of MV Act cannot be denied compensation
on ground that victim was rash and negligent and caused said
accident.
9. There is yet another aspect of matter that is
whether driver of Tipper Lorry not having driving license as on
date of accident would justify award. Accident occurred due to
involvement of two vehicles. Police investigation records would
implicate both riders of motorcycle as well as driver of lorry for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3623
HC-KAR
causing accident. It is seen accident occurred when deceased
Sunil riding motorcycle dashed against road side electric pole,
due to which he fell down on road, on which tipper in question
was plying which ran over him, causing his death. In absence
of material that driver of Tipper had any time to react, driver
holding license or otherwise would be immaterial. Therefore,
insurer would be liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, point
for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently,
following order:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed. Judgment and award dated
18.03.2023 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge
and MACT-V, Vijayapur in MVC no.956/2020 is
modified. Dismissal of claim petition against
insurer is set aside. Insurer is held liable to pay
compensation.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SN/NJ
