Karnataka High Court
Pundlik S/O Laxuman vs Kamalakar And Anr on 6 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491
MFA No. 201918 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201918 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
PUNDLIK S/O LAXUMAN,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR (NOW NIL),
R/O VILLAGE MADGOOL,
TQ. HUMNABAD & DIST. BIDAR,
NOW RESIDING AT LABOUR COLONY,
BIDAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KAMALAKAR S/O MANIKAPPA MOGA,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCCU: LABOUR,
Digitally signed
by
R/O VILLAGE MUSTARI, TQ. HUMNABAD,
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA
SHIVALEELA UDAGI DIST. BIDAR-585 401.
DATTATRAYA Location: HIGH
UDAGI COURT OF
KARNATAKA
Date:
2025.03.19
12:03:28 -0700 2. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR,
SHIVAJI CHOWK, ABOVE AXIS BANK,
KINGS CORNER, OSMANABAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER,
1ST FLOOR, BASAVSRI COMPLEX,
STADIUM ROAD, BIDAR-585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 04.02.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491
MFA No. 201918 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2019 PASSED BY THE ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT BIDAR, IN MVC
NO.578/2016 AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant
and the learned counsel for respondents.
2. Though the matter is at the stage of admission,
by consent of both the parties, the same is taken up for
final disposal.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on
13.10.2013 the petitioner and one Prabhureddy were
proceeding on motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-32/L-8728
from Basanthpur village towards Madgool. The petitioner
was the pillion rider and Prabhureddy was riding the said
motorcycle. At about 6.30 p.m., near the village Itga, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491
motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 insured by
respondent No.2 bearing Reg.No.KA-39/K-4344 came from
opposite direction and dashed to the motorcycle on which
the petitioner was traveling. The petitioner and his
companion fell down and suffered injuries and they were
shifted to C.H.C.Chitaguppa and a complaint was also filed
before Chitaguppa Police in Crime No.160/2013. In the
said complaint, the allegations were made against the
rider - Prabhureddy that he was riding the motorcycle
under intoxication of liquor. The petitioner filed a claim
petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act
(M.V.Act) seeking compensation from the owner and
insurer of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/K-4344.
4. The petition was opposed and resisted by
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company contending that
the negligence was on the part of the rider - Prabhureddy
and the petitioner has not produced the driving licence of
the said Prabhureddy. It also denied the liability on the
ground that the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491
39/K-4344 was also not having a driving licence and the
compensation claimed is highly imaginary and exorbitant.
However, the Insurance Company admitted that a case
was registered by Chitaguppa Police but alleged that it was
to help the petitioner. It was contended that it is a case of
contributory negligence and therefore the owner and
insurer of the vehicle on which the petitioner was traveling
was also to be impleaded.
5. On the basis of the above contentions, the
appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and
petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13
were marked in evidence. The Doctor who has assessed
the disability was examined as PW.2. No evidence was led
on behalf of respondents.
6. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal came
to the conclusion that though the petition filed under
Section 163A of the M.V.Act, the said petition is not
maintainable against the wrong persons. It was held that
in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company
Limited vs. Lalitabai and others1, the petition is not
maintainable, by holding that the rider Prabhureddy was
riding the motorcycle under the influence of alcohol. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court
in appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would
submit that the petitioner was the rider of motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-32/L-8728 along with Prabhureddy.
The said Prabhureddy was alleged to be riding the vehicle
under the influence of alcohol. The complaint has been
filed against the said Prabhureddy. Even then, when a
petition filed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act, the claim
against the other motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/K-
4344 is maintainable and the Tribunal erred in dismissing
the petition. It is contended that the reasoning of the
Tribunal in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment are totally
2013 ACJ 2304
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491
unsustainable in law. Therefore, he seek adequate
compensation to be awarded to the petitioner.
8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Manvendrareddy
would submit that when the petition under Section 163A of
the M.V.Act has been filed, negligence is immaterial and
moreover, for the petitioner, it was the case of composite
negligence. Therefore, he also concurred with the
proposition that the Tribunal has erred in interpreting the
provision of Section 163A of the M.V.Act.
9. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was a
pillion rider on the motorcycle which was ridden by one
Prabhureddy. In the FIR, there was an allegation against
said Prabhureddy that he was riding the motorcycle under
the influence of alcohol. Moreover, there were two pillion
riders on the motorcycle. For that reason, the petition was
filed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. It is pertinent to
note that the petitioner was the pillion rider and as such, it
was a case of composite negligence for him. In the result,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491
there was no necessity of invoking the provisions of
Section 163A of the M.V.Act also.
10. Be that as it may, the Tribunal holds in para 14
of the judgment that the rider of the motorcycle was under
the influence of alcohol. It also observes that if the
petitioner had impleaded the rider of the bike, then the
proof of negligence cannot be insisted, but it goes under
the premise that when a petition filed under Section 163A
of the M.V.Act, the negligence of the other vehicle has to
be proved. This proposition adopted by the Tribunal
appears to be totally incorrect.
11. It is pertinent to note that respondent Nos.1
and 2 being the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA-39/K-4344, admitted that their rider was not
prosecuted for negligent driving. For that purpose, it
appears that the provision of Section 163A of the M.V.Act
was invoked by the appellant. As noted supra, it being a
case of composite negligence, he was at liberty to go
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491
against any of the tort feasor. Under these circumstances,
dismissal of the petition is also not sustainable in law.
12. The judgment relied by the Tribunal in
Lalitabai's case referred to supra is not at all relevant for
the present case. Even then, the Tribunal observes that
the proof of negligence cannot be insisted as laid down by
this Court and this Court dismissed the petition. Thus, it is
evident that the impugned judgment and award cannot be
better described than a perverse one.
13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the
petitioner had suffered fracture of right femur as could be
seen from discharge summaries at Exs.P.7 and P.8. He
was treated with ORIF and he was inpatient from
14.10.2013 to 23.10.2013 and then one day on
09.11.2014. The petitioner claims himself to be a labourer,
aged about 28 years. PW.2 in his testimony states that the
petitioner has a disability of 26% to the right lower limb.
Appreciating the avocation of the petitioner, the functional
disability of the petitioner is assessed at 8%.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491
14. The petition has been filed under Section 163A
of the M.V.Act and therefore the annual income of the
petitioner has to be restricted to `40,000/-. Hence, the
loss of future income is calculated as `40,000/-x8%x17
=54,400/-.
15. As per the schedule, the petitioner is also
entitled for a sum of `5,000/- under the head 'pain and
suffering'. The petitioner has produced the medical bills
worth to `14,384/- and the same is rounded off to
`15,000/- and awarded to him.
16. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total
compensation under the following heads :-
Sl.No. Heads Compensation
1. Loss of future income `54,400/-
2. Pain and suffering `5,000/-
3. Medical expenses `15,000/-
Total `74,400/-
17. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed
and hence, the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is set-aside.
(iii) The appellant-petitioner is entitled for a
sum of `74,400/- with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of petition
till realization.
(iv) The respondent No.2- Insurance Company
is directed to deposit the compensation
along with interest within a period of 06
weeks from the date of this judgment, as
provided under Section 168(3) of the
Motor Vehicles Act.
(v) On such deposit being made, the entire
amount be released to the petitioner.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
CT: AK
