Karnataka High Court

Srikrishna S/O Chanbasappa vs Mohamamed Haneef And Anr on 10 June, 2025

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                                  -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987
                                                          MFA No. 201803 of 2019


                    HC-KAR



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                                 BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

                        MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201803 OF 2019 (MV-INJ)

                   BETWEEN:

                        SRIKRISHNA
                        S/O CHANBASAPPA,
                        AGE: 60 YEARS,
                        OCCU: AGRI.,
                        R/O: VILLAGE SITALGERA,
                        TQ: HUMNABAD,
                        NOW R/O: AT SHARAN NAGAR,
                        BIDAR - 585 401.
                                                                      ...APPELLANT

                   (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

Digitally signed   1.   MOHAMMED HANEEF
by RAMESH               S/O ISMAIL,
MATHAPATI               AGE: MAJOR,
Location: HIGH          OCCU: BUSINESS,
COURT OF                R/O: HALLIKHED-B,
KARNATAKA               TQ: HUMNABAD,
                        DIST: BIDAR - 585 414.

                   2.   UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
                        BRANCH OFFICE, PRASHANT HOUSE,
                        H.NO.22-441, BEHIND SYNDICATE BANK,
                        HUMNABAD - 585 330.
                        REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
                                                                   ...RESPONDENTS

                   (BY SRI RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                       NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
                                 -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987
                                        MFA No. 201803 of 2019


HC-KAR



      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.06.2018
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
M.A.C.T., AT BIDAR IN M.V.C.NO.512/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, 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 29.06.2018

passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bidar in MVC

no.512/2014, appeal is filed.

2. Sri Basavaraj R Math, learned counsel submitted

that appeal was by claimant challenging finding of Tribunal

apportioning negligence against claimant to extent of 50% as

well as seeking for enhancement of compensation. It was

submitted, on 10.05.2014 when claimant was proceeding on his

motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-39/J-4384 from

Sitalgera towards Markhal on proper side of road, at about 9.15

a.m., rider of motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-39/H-

5425, in process of overtaking another motorcycle in rash and

negligent manner dashed against claimant's motorcycle causing

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987

HC-KAR

accident. Due to said accident, claimant sustained grievous

injuries and was admitted to hospital for treatment. Despite

taking treatment, spending money, he did not recover fully and

sustained permanent disability/loss of earning capacity.

Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act,

against owner and insurer of offending motorcycle.

3. Despite service, owner did not appear. He was

placed ex-parte. Insurer filed objections denying claim petition

averments in toto and alleging violation of conditions of

insurance policy by insured and denying liability to pay

compensation. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following

issues:

"ISSUES

1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 10-05-2014 at about 09-15 a.m. when the petitioner was proceeding on his Motor Cycle bearing registration No. KA39/J4384 near the land of Sanju Kheni on Sitalgera Markhal road, due to the sole rash & negligence of the rider of Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing registration No. KA39/H5425 the accident occurred and he sustained grievous injuries?

2. Whether the respondent No.2 proves the first respondent violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, to what amount and from whom?

4. What Order or Award?"

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987

HC-KAR

4. Thereafter, claimant examined himself, eye witness

and Dr.Vijayakumar Bulgundi as PWs-1 to 3. Exhibits P-1 to P-

54 got marked. Respondent no.2 did not lead any evidence.

5. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1

partly in affirmative, issue no.2 in negative, issues no.3 and 4

by allowing claim petition and holding owner and insurer liable

to pay Rs.1,84,440/- (i.e. ½ of Rs.3,68,880/-) with interest 6%

p.a. to claimant.

6. It was submitted, Tribunal erred in holding

claimant negligent to extent of 50% in causing accident, merely

on ground that motor vehicle inspector's report indicated

accident between two motorcycle was head on collision. Said

finding was contrary to material on record namely, specific

assertion as well as deposition by PW-1 that claimant was

riding his motorcycle on proper side of road and that rider of

other motorcycle had come on wrong side and dashed against

claimant's motorcycle. It was further submitted damages to

petrol tank of claimant's motorcycle on its left side as well as

damage to brake paddle as noted by motor vehicles inspector

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987

HC-KAR

sufficiently indicated that accident was due to sole negligence

of rider of insured motorcycle.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that

compensation assessed by Tribunal under various heads was

inadequate and sought enhancement.

8. Sri Rahul R. Asture, learned counsel for respondent-

insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted even as per claimant

as well as police investigation records, accident in question was

due to head on collision between claimant's motorcycle and

insured. Though, claimant had sought to establish that accident

was due to sole negligence of insured vehicle by examining eye

witness as PW-2, insurer had elicited admission that PW-2 had

not witnessed accident. It was submitted, PW-2 was in fact

brother of claimant, who had failed to support him. Tribunal

had rightly taken note of same and held that accident was due

to negligence of riders of both motorcycles.

9. In reply, learned counsel for claimant submitted

that Ex.P-53 and 54 namely certified copy of order sheet and

judgment in CC No.487/2014 indicated that rider of insured

motorcycle had pleaded guilty to offences under Sections 279,

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987

HC-KAR

337 and 338 of IPC. On other hand, claimant was acquitted.

Therefore, Tribunal was not justified in heaping 50% negligence

on claimant.

10. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned

judgment and award and records.

11. From above, since, claimant is in appeal,

challenging finding of Tribunal on negligence as well as

quantum, points that arise for consideration are:

"i) Whether finding of Tribunal apportioning of

liability to extent of 50% on claimant is

contrary to law?

ii) Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement

of compensation as sought for?"

12. While passing impugned judgment and award,

Tribunal referred to prosecution records namely FIR, complaint,

charge sheet, spot Panchanama and MVI report marked as

Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-5 to P-7, wherein riders of both

motorcycles were alleged to have been rash and negligent. On

perusing Exhibits P-53 and 54 it noted that rider of insured

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987

HC-KAR

motorcycle had pleaded guilty, whereas claimant was acquitted.

It however observed acquittal in criminal case was not

conclusive proof of innocence of claimant. Referring to

deposition of PW-2, that he did not witness accident and spot

panchanama did not indicate width of road or accident spot,

but, Ex.P-7 (MVI report) showed damage to both motorcycles

on their front sides and held them to have contributed 50%

negligence each in causing accident.

13. However, Tribunal ignored that pleading guilty to

offence of causing accident due to rash and negligent driving

would bind Tribunal, it would not be so in case of acquittal.

Claimant would require to lead specific evidence to establish

that accident was not due to his rash and negligent riding.

14. In instant case, claimant has specifically pleaded

that he was riding his motorcycle on left side of road in

moderate speed, when rider of insured motorcycle rode it in

rash and negligent and zigzag manner, came on wrong side

and dashed against claimant's motorcycle. Even in his

deposition, he reiterated same facts. Though, he was cross

examined at length by insurer, there was not even a single

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987

HC-KAR

suggestion that accident occurred in middle of road and was

not due to insured vehicle proceeding on wrong side. Besides

above, it is seen, there is unexplained damage on left side of

fuel tank in addition to damage sustained on right side of

claimant's motorcycle. Thus, finding of Tribunal apportioning

negligence to extent of 50% against riders of both motorcycles

would be contrary to record. Hence, point no.1 is answered in

affirmative.

15. In accident, claimant sustained displaced fracture of

femur assessed by PW-3 to have resulted in partial permanent

disability of 22%. Tribunal considered age of claimant as 55

years, assessed his monthly income at Rs.8,000/-, loss of

earning capacity at 22% to award Rs.1,90,080/- towards loss

of future income, Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering,

Rs.54,800/- towards medical expenses, Rs.48,000/- towards

loss of income during laid up period, Rs.6,000/- towards

attendance, Rs.5,000/- towards food and nourishment and

Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities i.e. Rs.3,68,880/- in

total as compensation. On bare examination, same cannot be

held to be grossly inadequate. On other hand, compensation

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987

HC-KAR

awarded appears just and proper. Therefore, point no.2 is

answered in negative. Consequently, following:

ORDER

a) Appeal is allowed in part.

b) Judgment and award dated 29.06.2018 passed by

Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bidar in

MVC no.512/2014 is modified, insurer is held

liable to pay entire compensation as assessed by

Tribunal.