Karnataka High Court
J. Basavaraja vs M. Basavaraj S/O.M.Krishnamurthy on 12 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871
MFA No. 20532 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20532 OF 2013 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
1. J. BASAVARAJA S/O. LATE PAMPANNA,
AGE: 61 YEARS
2. KODI BASAVARAJ, S/O. J.BASAVARAJ,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
3. SHIVARAJ, S/O. J.BASAVARAJ,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O. HIREHAGADAL VILLAGE
TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. BALLARI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY KUM. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADV FOR
SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV)
AND:
1. M. BASAVARAJ S/O. M. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF HEROHONDA
MOTOR BIKE BEARING REG.NO.KA-35/R-4611,
R/O.D.NO.15/220, OLD MEDAR ROAD, HOSPET.
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR 2. THE MANAGER,
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, SEETHARAM COMPLEX,
Digitally signed OPPOSITE COSMOPOLITAN CLUB,
by
MOHANKUMAR DOUBLE ROAD, BELLARY.
B SHELAR
Date: ...RESPONDENTS
2025.09.17
15:46:05 +0530 (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04-05-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.237/2010 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM MEMBER,
MACT-VI, KUDLIGI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871
MFA No. 20532 of 2013
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
'M.V.Act,' for short) by the petitioners challenging the
judgment and award dated 04.05.2012 passed in MVC
No.237/2010 by the learned Civil Judge cum Member
MACT-VI, Kudligi.
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are
as follows:
3. Respondent No.1 was the rider of the motor-cycle
bearing registration No.KA-35/R-4611, respondent
No.2 is the owner of the said motor-cycle and
respondent No.3 is the insurer of the said motor-cycle.
On 06.02.2009 at about 8.00 p.m, the accident
occurred on Kudligi Hospet by-pass road. In the said
accident, Smt. Lakshmikanthamma sustained grievous
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871
HC-KAR
injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The
petitioners being the legal representatives of the
deceased Lakshmikanthamma filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of the M.V Act, seeking for
compensation on account of death of Smt.
Lakshmikanthamma in the road traffic accident.
4. The Tribunal issued notice to the respondents. The
respondents appeared through the counsel.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 though appeared but did not
choose to file a statement of objections.
5. Respondent No.3- The Insurance Company filed a
statement of objections denying the averments made
in the claim petition, and contended that the rider of
the motor-cycle did not possess a valid and effective
driving license as of the date of accident. Hence, prays
to dismiss the claim petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871
HC-KAR
6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties
framed the relevant issues.
7. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner
No.3 was examined as PW.1 and marked 11
documents as Exs.P1 to P11. In rebuttal, the officer
of the Insurance Company was examined as RW.1 and
marked 5 documents as Exs.R1 to R5.
8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and
documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in
part and awarded the compensation of Rs.50,000/-
with interest at 8% per annum from the date of
petition till the realization of the amount and held the
owner of the motorcycle in question. The claim
petition against the Insurance Company was dismissed
and it directed the owner of the motor-cycle in
question to deposit the compensation amount.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871
HC-KAR
9. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation and also the dismissal of the claim
petition against the Insurance Company, filed this
Miscellaneous First Appeal.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel for the Insurance
Company.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have proved that the accident was
occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the
rider of the motor-cycle in question and produced the
charge sheet, marked as Ex.P2. The Tribunal has
recorded in its finding that the accident was occurred
due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the
motor-cycle and dismissed the claim petition against
the Insurance Company without assigning any
reasons. She submits that as of the date of accident,
the insurance policy was valid. The Insurance
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871
HC-KAR
Company is liable to indemnify the owner by paying
compensation to the petitioners. She submits that the
appeal may be allowed and matter be remitted to the
Tribunal to give findings on the liability.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company supported the impugned judgment. He
admits that though the Tribunal has not assigned any
reasons for dismissing the claim petition against the
Insurance Company, but there is breach of policy
condition. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss
the appeal.
13. Perused the records, and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
14. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the
dismissal of the claim petition against the Insurance
Company.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871
HC-KAR
15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of
accident and death of the deceased Smt.
Lakshmikanthamma in the road traffic accident. To
prove that the accident was occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle,
the petitioner has produced the charge sheet marked,
as Ex.P2. The Insurance Company has taken a specific
defense in the statement of objections that the rider of
the motor-cycle was not having a valid and effective
driving license as of the date of accident. The
Insurance Company examined its officer as RW.1.
16. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, the
Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for dismissing
the claim petition against the Insurance Company.
When the Tribunal has answered issue No.1 in the
affirmative, the Tribunal should have assigned reasons
for dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance
Company. Hence, The Tribunal committed an error in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871
HC-KAR
dismissing the claim petition without assigning any
reasons. In view of the above discussion, the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed.
ii. The judgment and award dated
04.05.2012 passed in MVC No.237/2010
by the learned Civil Judge cum Member
MACT-VI, Kudligi, is hereby set aside.
iii. The claim petition in MVC No.237/2010
is restored to its original file.
iv. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of
the claim petition after assigning the
appropriate reasons.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871
HC-KAR
v. The parties are directed to appear
before the Tribunal on 29.10.2025
without awaiting further notice.
vi. All the contentions of the parties are
kept open.
vii. The office is directed to transmit the
records to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
SKS
CT: BSB
