Karnataka High Court
Shridhar S/O Karibasayya vs Gangamma W/O Shashidharswamy on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288
MFA No. 101458 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101458 OF 2015 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SHRIDHAR S/O. KARIBASAYYA,
38 YEARS,
R/O: MUSALAPUR,
TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.M. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O. SHASHIDHARSWAMY,
GIRIJA A. 29 YEARS,
BYAHATTI
R/O: MUSALAPUR,
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
TQ: GANGAVATHI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
NOW R/O: GANGANAL,
TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.
2. PRAKASH
S/O. SHASHIDHARSWAMY,
AGE: 8 YEARS,
3. SHIVAPRASAD
S/O. SHASHIDHARSWAMY,
6 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288
MFA No. 101458 of 2015
HC-KAR
RESPONDENT NO'S. 2 & 3 ARE MINORS
U/G OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
IE. RESPONDENT NO.1.
4. MUDIYAPPA S/O. BASAPPA NAYAK,
38 YEARS,
R/O: MUSALAPUR,
TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL.
5. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E-8, EPIP, RIICO SITAPUR,
JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.V. PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3;
MS. ANUSHA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & AWARD IN MVC.NO.21/2013 DATED
30.01.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT GANGAVATHI,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288
MFA No. 101458 of 2015
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
1. Heard Mr. A. M. Malipatil, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Ms.Anusha, who represents
Sri.S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel for respondent
No.5. Though Sri.D. V. Pattar is on record for
respondents No.1 to 3, learned counsel failed to make
his appearance.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the award that is passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangavathi, in
MVC No.21/2013 dated 30.01.2015. The owner of the
Trax vehicle which is involved in the accident against
whom liability is fixed to an extent of 80% is before
this Court challenging his liability to pay
compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288
HC-KAR
3. Two claim petitions were filed basing on the accident
that occurred due to the involvement of the
appellant's vehicle. One claim petition, which is the
subject matter of this appeal, was filed by the wife and
two minor children of deceased Shasidharswamy
(hereinafter referred to as 'deceased' for brevity). The
second claim petition was filed by the parents of the
deceased. Both the claim petitions were disposed of
by a common order giving a finding that the liability of
the appellant is fixed at 80%. However, the appellant
challenged only the order that is rendered in MVC
No.21/2013.
4. The manner of happening of the accident as projected
by the claimants before the Tribunal is that, on the
date of the accident, while the deceased was
proceeding in a Trax vehicle bearing registration
No.KA-14/9902 which was being driven by respondent
No.4 herein and when the vehicle was proceeding on
Koppal-Kushtagi road, at that time respondent No.4
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288
HC-KAR
drove the vehicle in a negligent manner and at a high
speed due to which the deceased was thrown away
from the vehicle and the vehicle ran over his head,
due to which he died on the spot.
5. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant
states that the appellant and the deceased are own
brothers. The deceased was engaged to collect fare
from the passengers travelling in the vehicle. While
the deceased was collecting fare from the passengers
standing negligently and by hanging to the door, he
himself fell down and died and thus there is no
negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.
Learned counsel submits that the deceased therefore
died due to his own negligence and thus the appellant
is not liable to pay any compensation to respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the
driver of the vehicle was not holding driving licence to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288
HC-KAR
drive the said vehicle as on the date of accident. That
apart, charge sheet was laid against the driver of the
vehicle only. However, the Tribunal considering the
totality of facts held that the negligence on the part of
the deceased can be taken as 20% and the negligence
on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as
80% and thus the order of the Tribunal is reasonable.
7. As earlier indicated, one claim petition is filed by wife
and children of the deceased and another by the
parents of the deceased. Common orders were
rendered in both the claim petitions holding that the
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is
20% and negligence on the part of the driver of the
Trax is 80% and thus the appellant is liable to pay
80% of the compensation awarded.
8. So far as the claimants in other claim petition are
concerned, they are none other than the parents of
the appellant. May be due to that reason the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288
HC-KAR
appellant has not challenged the award passed in
favour of his parents.
9. Be that as it may, undisputedly the driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding driving licence to
drive the said vehicle as on the date of accident. The
appellant therefore has to say why he entrusted the
vehicle to a person who does not hold a driving licence
that too for carrying passengers. Apart from that,
after due investigation, police laid charge sheet
against the driver of the vehicle only. Also the
appellant, who has taken a specific plea that the
deceased was negligent, did not choose to adduce any
evidence to establish his version. At least the
appellant did not enter into witness box to state how
he is of the view that the deceased was solely
negligent.
10. Considering all these facts, Tribunal rightly held that
the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16288
HC-KAR
deceased were at fault and the contribution of the
deceased for the accident to occur is 20% and the
driver of the offending vehicle is 80%. This Court
therefore is of the view that there are no grounds to
disturb the findings of the Tribunal that were given in
the impugned order. Thus, ultimately this Court holds
that the appeal lacks merits.
11. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
gab
CT-MCK
