Karnataka High Court
Mallappa S/O Bhimappa Harijan vs Nagesh S/O Kuberappa Hesrambi on 14 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15573
MFA No. 103027 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103027 OF 2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. MALLAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA HARIJAN
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: MAHADEV NAGAR, HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SMT. KANTHEWWA W/O. MALLAPPA HARIJAN
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O: MAHADEV NAGAR, HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA PUROHIT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
AND:
by BHARATHI
HM
Location:
HIGH COURT
BHARATHI OF
KARNATAKA
HM DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2025.11.18
1. NAGESH S/O. KUBERAPPA HESRAMBI
11:27:19
+0530
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
R/O: ARASHINAGERI, POST: HUNAGUND,
TQ: MUNDAGOD, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.,
DB PLAZA 3RD FLOOR, 47, WHITES ROAD,
CHENNAI-014, TAMIL NADU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUSHA SANGAVI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE SERVED TO R1)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15573
MFA No. 103027 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 28.06.2016 PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC HUBBALLI IN MVC NO.362/2015 AND TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'MV Act'), praying for setting
aside the judgment and award, dated 28.06.2016 passed in
M.V.C. No.362/2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge &
JMFC, Hubli, ( in short 'the Tribunal') by unsuccessful
claimants.
2. Parties would be referred with their rank, as they
were before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience and
clarity.
3. Claimant has filed the petition under Section 166
of M.V. Act before Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Hubli, in M.V.C. No.362/2015, wherein petitioners have
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15573
HC-KAR
claimed compensation for the death of one Annappa S/o
Mallappa Harijan took place due to the accident that
occurred on 28.03.2014 at 05.30 p.m. at Arasingeri of
Mundagod Taluk, Uttara Kannada.
4. On receipt of notice, the respondent No.2-insurer
filed objection statement wherein it denied the petition
averments in toto regarding the date, place, time of the
accident; the manner in which happened; and further took
specific contention that petition is bad for want of territorial
jurisdiction to try the petition and prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
5. After framing the issues, and hearing arguments
regarding preliminary issue on the point of jurisdiction, the
Tribunal has dismissed the petition on the ground that the
accident occurred not within the local limits of the Tribunal,
the claimants have not produced any material before the
Tribunal that claimants were residents or carries on
business within the local limits of of Hubli Taluk or
respondent is carrying on business at Hubli Taluk.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15573
HC-KAR
6. Aggrieved by it, appellants/clamants have
preferred this appeal.
7. The learned counsel for appellant Sri
Raghavendra Purohit for Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni would
submit that the claim petition ought not to have been
dismissed because the claimants are residents of Hubli taluk
and thus, they come under second ingredient of S.166(2) of
MV Act. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of Co-
ordinate bench of this Court in MFA No.24605/2013 dated
31.08.2016 wherein at paragraph No.7 it is held as follows:
"7. It is stated, the accident occurred on
28.02.2011 at about 10.30 hours. The petitioner has filed
claim petition before the MACT at Hubli. The petitioner has
given his Hubli address also. The 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company is carrying on its business at Hubli. Therefore, the
Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the petition on the
ground that it has no jurisdiction to try the case. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10/2016,
disposed on 5.1.2016, in the case of Malathi Sardar Vs
National Insurance Company has held that there is no
bar to file claim petition in the place where the Insurance
Company carries on its business. In the present case, the
Insurance Company is carrying its business at Hubli.
Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the
claim petition on the ground that it has no jurisdiction.
Therefore, the impugned Judgment and order cannot be
sustained in law."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15573
HC-KAR
8. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, the learned
counsel for appellants would pray for allowing the appeal
stating that the Tribunal erred in not verifying the records
properly.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Smt.Anusha
Sangami for Sri S.K.Kayakmath would submit that
claimants ought to have produced the address proof
document to show the proper address of claimants if they
contend that they are residents of the place within the local
limits of the Tribunal. However, claimants in the present
case have not produced any such material. Hence, she
would pray for dismissal of the appeal by confirming the
judgment passed by the Tribunal.
10. Having heard the arguments of both sides and
verifying the records, the only point that would arise for
consideration is 'Whether the Tribunal at Hubli is having
jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition?'
11. Finding on this point is in "negative" for the
following reasons:-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15573
HC-KAR
12. This claim petition is filed under Section 166 of
the M.V. Act, praying for compensation in respect of death
of one Annappa S/o Mallappa Harijan who died due to the
accident that had taken place on 28.03.2014 at 05.30 p.m.
at Arasingeri of Mundagod Taluk, Uttara Kannada District
due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Tata ACE
vehicle bearing registration No.KA-31/9025.
13. As per Section 166(2) of the M.V. Act, the claim
petition can be filed at the option of claimants in any one of
the following places:
i) within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in which the
accident happened;
ii) within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the
claimants reside or carries on business; or
iii) within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
defendant resides.
14. In the instant case, admittedly the accident
occurred within Mundagod taluk, Uttara Kannada District
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15573
HC-KAR
and not within the jurisdiction of Hubli. Hence, the first
ingredient of Section 166(2) of the M.V Act is not fulfilled.
15. Second one is within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction, the claimants reside or carries on business. In
the claim petition, claimants have stated that they are the
residents of Hubli. However, the claimants have not
produced any iota of material to show that they were
residents of Hubli at the time of alleged accident or atleast
at the time of filing the petition.
16. Third one is within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the defendant resides. Respondent No.1 is
resident of Mundagod Taluk and not Hubli Taluk; the
address of respondent No.2 is shown as Chennai, Tamil
Nadu. No material is produced to show that the second
respondent is having any branch office at Hubli.
17. In the judgment of the Co-ordinate of this Court
relied by the learned counsel for claimants, it is held that
the respondent-insurer was having Branch Office at Hubli
and thus, by relying on the judgment of Honb'le Apex Court
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15573
HC-KAR
in Civil Appeal No.10/2016 disposed off on 05.01.2016
between Malathi Sardar Vs. National Insurance
Company Ltd. and others, it was held that the claim
petition could be filed where the insurance Company carries
on its business and remanded to the Tribunal for fresh
disposal in accordance with law. However, that is not the
situation in present case. As discussed above, no material is
produced to show that claimants are residents of Hubli
Taluk or respondent No.1 is resident of Hubli Taluk or
respondent No.2 is having its branch office in Hubli Taluk.
Under these circumstances, definitely the Tribunal at Hubli
is not having territorial jurisdiction to try the petition.
18. Considering these aspects, rightly the Tribunal
has dismissed the claim petition. There is no reason to
interfere on the aforesaid judgment. Hence, the appeal filed
under Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
VMB
