Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Puneetha S/O Nagalingappa on 11 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797
MFA No. 101645 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101645 OF 2016 (MV-)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101646 OF 2016
IN MFA NO. 101645 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
PARVATHI NAGARA, BALLARI
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX
IIND FLOOR, STATION ROAD, HUBBALLI
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. S KOLIWAD, ADV)
AND:
1. K. GANGADHARA S/O K. KOTRESHI
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. PAINTER
R/O. TOOLAHALLI VILLAGE
MOHANKUMAR KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI DIST.
B SHELAR
2. F.D. KAREEM S/O D. HUSAIN SAB
AGE: 47, OCCU. DRIVER OF MAXI PICK UP VAN
Digitally signed
by R/O AZAD NAGARA, KUDLIGI TOWN
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. BALLARI.
Date:
2025.09.17
15:46:04 +0530
3. PARUSURAM S/O DEVENDRAPPA
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCU. BUSINESS
R/O NEAR RAMALINGESHWAR TEMPLE
JAVALI STREET, KOTTUR TOWN
TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. BALLARI
(OWNER OF MAXI PICKUP
BEARING NO.KA-35/A-1460).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERESH H.M, ADV FOR R1,
NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT & R3 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797
MFA No. 101645 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:10.12.2015, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.33/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM
MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -VI AT
KUDLIGI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,35,907/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL ITS REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO. 101646 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
PARVATHI NAGARA BALLARI
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX
IIND FLOOR, STATION ROAD, HUBBALLI
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S KOLIWAD, ADV)
AND:
1. SRI. PUNEETHA S/O NAGALINGAPPA
AGE:30 YEARS, OCC. NILL
R/O. TOOLAHALLI VILLAGE
KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI DIST.
2. SMT. VANI D/O NAGALINGAPPA
AND W/O RUDRAMUNI, AGE:28 YEARS,
OCC. NILL, R/O. SIDDANAMUTT
CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST
NOW R/AT. R/O. TOOLAHALLI VILLAGE
KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI DIST.
3. F.D. KAREEM S/O D. HUSAIN SAB
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCU. DRIVER OF MAXI PICK
UP VAN, R/O AZAD NAGARA, KUDLIGI TOWN
TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. BALLARI.
4. PARUSURAM S/O DEVENDRAPPA
AGE:47 YEARS, OCCU. BUSINESS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797
MFA No. 101645 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016
HC-KAR
R/O NEAR RAMALINGESHWAR TEMPLE
JAVALI STREET, KOTTUR TOWN
TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. BALLARI
(OWNER OF MAXI PICK UP
BEARING NO.KA-35/A-1460)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, ADV FOR
SRI. RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADV FOR R1 & R2
NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT & R4 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.34/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM MEMBER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VI, KUDLIGI, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,08,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
These Appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
'M.V.Act,' for short) by the Insurance Company, challenging
the judgment and award dated 10.12.2015 passed in MVC
Nos.33 and 34 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge,
cum Member VI-MACT, Kudligi.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797
HC-KAR
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this
appeal, are as follows:
3. On 22.05.2013, at about 8.30 p.m., the
petitioner and his friend were travelling in a motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-35/H-6379 from Toolahalli to Sokke for
painting work. When they came near the Toolahalli Sokke
road, at about 9.00 p.m, the driver of the Maxi Pickup
Goods Van bearing Reg.No.KA-35/A-1460, drove the same
at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed
to the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioners sustained the
grievous injuries and his friend (i.e, the deceased in MVC
No. 34/2014) succumbed to the injuries at spot, and they
were shifted to the hospital. The petitioner has spent a huge
amount towards the medical and other expenses. Hence,
they filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the M.V.Act
seeking compensation. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim
petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797
HC-KAR
4. The driver and the owner of the offending vehicle
remained unrepresented, and have been placed ex-parte.
5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of
objections denying the averments made in the claim
petition. It is contended that two vehicles are involved in
the accident, and owner and Insurance Company of the
motorcycle were not made as parties to the claim petition,
and they are the necessary parties. It is contended that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of
the motorcycle by its rider. The rider of the motorcycle and
the driver of the Maxi cab did not possess a valid and
effective driving license. There is a breach of policy
conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions
against the Insurance Company.
6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the
parties, framed the relevant issues.
7. The petitioners, to substantiate their case,
examined the petitioner in MVC NO. 33/2014 P.W.1 and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797
HC-KAR
petitioner No. 1 in MVC NO. 34/2014 as PW- 2, examined
the doctor as P.W.3, and marked 21 documents as Exs.P1
to P21. Conversely, on the other hand, an official of the
Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1, and marked 1
document as Ex.R1.
8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and
documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part
vide judgment dated 10.12.2015 and awarded a
compensation of Rs.2,35,907/- to the petitioner in MVC
No.33/2014 and Rs.7,08,000/- in MVC No.34/2014 with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition
till the date of realization. The owner, driver and insurance
company were held liable jointly and severally and the
Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation
amount to the petitioners in both the claim petitions.
9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the
judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.33 and 34 of 2014,
filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797
HC-KAR
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submits that after the accident, the petitioners were shifted
to the Government Hospital, Jagalur, and they have stated
about the occurrence of the accident before the Doctor. As
per the Ex.P7-wound certificate, it discloses that on
22.05.2013 at 8.30 p.m. near Toolahalli, the petitioners
were hit the Bolero and as per Ex.P-21-entire case sheet
issued by Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, its history discloses
that the injured was a pillion rider on a bike hit by Bolaro
vehicle at 8.30 p.m. on 22.05.2013. On the same day, the
complaint was lodged against an unknown driver and
vehicle in crime No.76/2013. He submits that after eight
days, the petitioner and owner of the vehicle having
colluded with the police, fixed the insured vehicle. Later on,
the vehicle was seized on 30.05.2013, and the vehicle was
inspected on 01.06.2013, and the driver was also arrested
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797
HC-KAR
on 30.05.2013. He submits that the Tribunal has not
considered the material evidence, and history of the medical
records. He also submits that the driver of the offending
vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license
as of the date of the accident. He submits that the Tribunal,
without considering these material aspects awarded the
compensation. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow
the appeals.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners met with an accident
and sustained grievous injuries and the deceased in MVC
NO. 34/2014 succumbed to the injuries. He submits that a
complaint was lodged against an unknown vehicle and
driver. The police after investigation have filed the charge
sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. He submits
that neither the owner nor the Insurance Company have
challenged the charge sheet filed against the driver of the
offending vehicle. He submits that the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797
HC-KAR
any interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to dismiss the appeals.
13. Perused the records, and considered the
submission of the learned counsel for the parties.
14. The point, that would arise for my consideration
is regarding the liability.
Regarding Liability:
15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of
the accident, the petitioners sustained the injuries, and the
deceased in MVC NO. 34/2014 succumbed to the injuries.
As of the date of the accident, the petitioners have
sustained grievous injuries, and they are not in a position to
disclose the number of the offending vehicle. The complaint
was lodged against an unknown vehicle and the driver. The
police after the investigation filed a charge sheet at EX. P-3,
showing that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797
HC-KAR
Tribunal based on the charge sheet produced by the
petitioners has rightly recorded its finding that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the offending vehicle.
16. The Insurance Company contended that after the
accident, the petitioners were shifted to the Government
Hospital, Jagalur, and they have stated about the
occurrence of the accident before the Doctor. As per Ex.P7-
wound certificate, its history discloses that on 22.05.2013
at 8.30 p.m. near Toolahalli, the petitioners were hit by the
Bolero and Ex.P21-entire case sheet issued by Bapuji
Hospital, Davanagere, its history, discloses that injured was
a pillion rider on a bike hit by Bolaro vehicle at 8.30 p.m. on
22.05.2013. Although, there is a discrepancy regarding the
nature of the motorcycle, but ultimately, the police after
investigation filed a charge sheet against the driver of the
offending vehicle. Further, the Insurance Company has not
examined any eyewitness to prove that the accident had
not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797
HC-KAR
driver of the offending vehicle. The medical records
produced by the petitioners discloses that the injuries
sustained by the petitioners are the injuries sustained, in a
road traffic accident. The Division Bench of this court in MFA
No.7493/2007 disposed of on 25.09.2007, held that if the
Insurance Company has not challenged the charge sheet,
they cannot be exonerated from the liability. The Tribunal
considering the entire evidence on record has rightly passed
the impugned judgment and award. I concur with the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
17. In view of the same, the point regarding the
liability is answered accordingly. Accordingly, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Appeals are dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 10.12.2015
passed in MVC Nos.33 and 34 of 2014 by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, cum Member VI-
MACT, Kudligi, is hereby confirmed.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797
HC-KAR
iii) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit,
if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal
concerned, forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
MBS
CT: BSB
