Karnataka High Court
Saraswati And Ors vs Sidram And Anr on 21 November, 2025
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7077-DB
MFA No. 200588 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200588 OF 2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SARASWATI
W/O LATE PRADEEP DEVARSE,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. AKSHATA
D/O LATE PRADEEP DEVARSE,
AGE: 6 YEARS,
3. ASHUTOSH
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
S/O LATE PRADEEP DEVARSE,
DHUTTARGAON AGE: 5 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE UNDER
CUSTODY AND GUARDIAN OF THEIR
NATURAL MOTHER I.E. APPELLANT NO.1
4. ISHWAR
S/O PEERAJI DEVARSE,
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. JAISHREE
W/O ISHWAR DEVARSE,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7077-DB
MFA No. 200588 of 2020
HC-KAR
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ALL APPELLANTS ARE R/O: MURKIWADI VILLAGE,
TQ. KAMALANAGAR,
NOW RESIDING AT C/O: GANPATHI BIRADAR,
H.NO.9-12-18/27 (NEW) VIDYA NAGAR COLONY,
BIDAR, TQ & DIST: BIDAR - 584 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BABU H.METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SIDRAM
S/O BHIMRAO,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.61, RANDYAL VILLAGE,
TQ : AURAD-B, DIST; BIDAR 584 101.
(OWNER OF TAVERA NO.KA-19/B-2333)
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE VEERBHADRASHWAR CHAMBER,
DOOR NO.8-10-135/1 AND 1A,
OPP: NEHRU STADIUM,
BIDAR - 584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.12.2019
PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.289/2018 BY THE ADDL. MACT AND
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT-BIDAR, AND AWARD
THE COMPENSATION OF RS.90,50,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST
AND ETC.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7077-DB
MFA No. 200588 of 2020
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for
short) has been filed by the claimants challenging the
judgment and award dated 05.12.2019 passed by the
Additional MACT and Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM,
Bidar in MVC No.289/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 16.07.2016, the deceased Pradeep after
completing his duty at Udgir was returning to his village
Murkiwadi, Tq. Kamalnagar, after picking up his daughter
Akshata from her school, on his motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.MH-23/AA-5617 at about 5:00 PM, when the
deceased came on Udgir-Murkiwadi village, at that time,
the driver of the Tavera Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA-19/B-
2333, which was driven in high speed and in rash and
negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7077-DB
HC-KAR
deceased from opposite direction. As a result of the
aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous
injuries and was hospitalized initially at Government
Hospital, Udgir. Thereafter, he was shifted to Yashodhara
Hospital, Solapur, for higher treatment. However, he
succumbed to the injuries on 19.07.2016.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of
the Act seeking compensation for the death of the
deceased along with interest.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
denying the averments made in the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded
the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment,
dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the present
appeal has been filed.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7077-DB
HC-KAR
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has submitted
that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Tavera Jeep bearing
Registration No.KA-19-B-2333. The Police, after thorough
investigation, have filed a charge sheet against the driver
of the offending vehicle. Even the medical records show
that the deceased Pradeep, died due to accidental injuries.
The only dispute is whether the offending vehicle, i.e., the
jeep, was involved in the accident. The Insurance
Company has not denied that the jeep was not involved in
the accident. The owner of the jeep, examined as RW-1,
has also not denied that the offending vehicle was not
involved in the accident. Under these circumstances, the
Tribunal erred in holding that the offending vehicle, Tavera
Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-19-B-2333, was not
involved in the accident. Hence, he sought to allow the
appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has submitted that the accident
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7077-DB
HC-KAR
occurred on 16.07.2016, and the complaint was lodged on
27.07.2016. There was a delay in lodging the complaint.
He also submitted that the Police have filed a UDR, which
has not reported that the death was due to accidental
injuries. He further submitted that even the MLC report
produced as Ex.R7 contains no reference that the jeep was
involved in the accident. Only at a later stage in the
charge sheet, the jeep was included and the charge sheet
was filed stating that the driver of the jeep was involved in
the accident. The Tribunal, after considering all the
material available on record, dismissed the claim petition.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment of the Tribunal.
9. The case of the claimants is that on 16.07.2016, the
deceased Pradeep after completing his duty at Udgir was
returning to his village Murkiwadi, Tq. Kamalnagar, after
picking up his daughter Akshata from her school, on his
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.MH-23/AA-5617 at about 5:00
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7077-DB
HC-KAR
PM, when the deceased came on Udgir-Murkiwadi village,
at that time, the driver of the Tavera Jeep bearing
Reg.No.KA-19/B-2333, which was driven in high speed
and in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the
motorcycle of the deceased from opposite direction. As a
result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained
grievous injuries and was hospitalized initially at
Government Hospital, Udgir. Thereafter, he was shifted to
Yashodhara Hospital, Solapur, for higher treatment.
However, he succumbed to the injuries on 19.07.2016.
10. Immediately after the accident, the claimants lodged
the complaint on 27.07.2016. The Police registered an FIR
against the driver of the jeep. The Police, after thorough
investigation, filed the charge sheet against the driver of
the jeep. After service of summons, the Insurance
Company was represented through counsel. In the written
statement, it has not denied the involvement of the
offending vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-19/B-2333 in
the accident. Even the owner of the offending vehicle filed
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7077-DB
HC-KAR
a written statement and has not denied the involvement of
the jeep in the accident.
11. The Tribunal, on the basis of the MLC report and the
UDR filed by the Police, has suspected the involvement of
the jeep in the accident. The prime suspicion of the case is
that the driver of the jeep has not been examined and that
the Investigation Officer, who filed the charge sheet, has
also not been examined in this case. Therefore, we are of
the opinion that, to give an opportunity to both the
parties, the matter requires to be remitted back to the
Tribunal for fresh consideration.
12. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed.
b) The judgment and award dated 05.12.2019 passed
by the Tribunal in MVC No.289/2018, is hereby set
aside.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7077-DB
HC-KAR
c) The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with
liberty to the parties to adduce additional evidence
and to produce additional documents and also to
examine driver of the jeep and the Investigation
Officer.
d) The Tribunal is directed to reconsider the matters
afresh, in accordance with law.
e) It is made clear that the Tribunal shall decide the
claim petition without being influencing any
observation made by this Court in this order as well
as the earlier order passed by the Tribunal dated
05.12.2019.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
HA
