Karnataka High Court
Siddappa S/O Pundalikappa Immadi vs Suvarna W/O Arjun Ankalagi on 17 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12304
MFA No. 103405 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103405 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SIDDAPPA S/O PUNDALIKAPPA IMMADI
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O. UTTUR VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ J. APPANNANAVAR, ADV FOR
SRI. LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADV)
AND:
1. SMT. SUVARNA W/O ARJUN ANKALAGI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MUNAVALLI, TQ: SAUNDATTI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SHWETA W/O KALAPPA MANGASOOLI
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SANKESHWAR, TQ: NIPPANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
MOHANKUMAR 3. AKSHATA D/O ARJUN ANKALAGI
B SHELAR (DECEASED, RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2
AND 4 ARE TRATED AS LRS OF
Location: HIGH DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.3).
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. SACHIN S/O ARJUN ANKALAGI
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. MUNAVALLI, TQ: SAUNDATTI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
SINCE MINOR, REP BY MOTHER AS
RESPONDENT NO.1.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADV FOR R1, R2 & R4
R4 IS MINOR R/BY R1, AND R3 IS DECEASED, R1, R2 &
R4 ARE LR'S OF DECEASED R3)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12304
MFA No. 103405 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:29.09.2014, PASSED IN MVC.
NO.2650/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SAUNDATTI, AWARDING THE COMPENSTION
OF RS.10,24,000/- ALONG WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6%
P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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)
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 owner of the offending vehicle, challenging the
judgment and award dated 29.09.2014 passed in MVC
No.2650/2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT, Saundatti.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal,
are as follows:
3. On 09.01.2012, the deceased Arjun along with
his friend Dyamappa had been to Sindhanoor. While
returning, the deceased was riding the Kawasaki Bajaj
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12304
HC-KAR
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-25/R-8602 in a moderate
speed observing all the traffic rules. When they came near
Gandhinagar-Teggihal village at about 7.00 p.m., a Bajaj
Discover motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-48/J-8574 ridden
by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the
motorcycle of Arjun. As a result, Arjun sustained grievous
injuries, and succumbed to the injuries. The legal
representatives of the deceased Arjun filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation on
account of the death of Arjun in a road traffic accident.
4. The notice was served to the owner of the
offending motorcycle. Despite service of notice, the owner
of the offending motorcycle remained unrepresented, and
he was placed ex-parte.
5. The petitioners to substantiate their case,
petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1, examined one
witness as P.W.2, and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12304
HC-KAR
P9. Conversely, respondent has not lead any oral or
documentary evidence.
6. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and
documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part
with costs, and awarded a compensation of Rs.10,24,000/-
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till its realisation, and directed the owner of the offending
motorcycle to pay the compensation amount to the
petitioners.
7. The owner of the offending motorcycle,
aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC
No.2650/2012, has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the owner of the offending motorcycle, and the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
9. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending
motorcycle submits that notice was not served on the owner
before the Tribunal, hence, he could not appear before the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12304
HC-KAR
Tribunal. He also submits that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, on these
grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that notice was duly served on the
owner of the offending motorcycle. Despite service of
notice, he remained unpresented, and he was placed ex-
parte. He submits that the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any
interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to dismiss the appeal.
11. Perused the records, and considered the
submission of the learned counsel for the parties.
12. The point, that would arise for my consideration
is regarding liability.
13. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of
the accident, and the death of the deceased Arjun in a road
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12304
HC-KAR
traffic accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending
motorcycle, the petitioners have produced a charge sheet
marked as Ex.P8, filed against the rider of the offending
motorcycle.
14. Admittedly, the accident occurred in 2012. The
petitioners have contended that the deceased Arjun was
doing TV repair work and also doing agricultural work, and
earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. To substantiate their case, the
petitioners have not produced any income proof. In the
absence of proof of the income, the Tribunal has assessed
the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,800/-. The
Tribunal considering the material on record has rightly
awarded compensation of Rs.10,24,000/-. Admittedly, the
offending motorcycle was not insured with the Insurance
Company as of the date of the accident. The Tribunal was
justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the
offending motorcycle. I do not find any error in the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12304
HC-KAR
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Appeal is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 29.09.2014
passed in MVC No.2650/2012 by the learned
Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT,
Saundatti, is hereby confirmed.
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
