[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S/O Yallappa Dewanand vs Babu S/O Madiwalappa Ulavi on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899
MFA No. 100607 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101578 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100607/2014 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101578/2014 (MV)
IN MFA NO. 100607/2014:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
NO.89, S.V.R. COMPLEXES,
2ND FLOOR, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
IIND FLOOR, BELLAD BUILDING,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.ANUSHA SANGAMI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SK KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
AND:
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.04 06:18:28
+0100
1. SHRI BASAVARAJ YALLAPPA DEWANAD,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE (NOW NIL),
R/O: NEGINHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. SHRI BABU MADIWALAPPA ULAVI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NEGINHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGUAM.
(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-24/J-9138)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899
MFA No. 100607 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101578 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED
FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
20.09.2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BAILHONGAL, IN MVC
NO.1017/2010, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.101578/2014 :
BETWEEN:
SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O YALLAPPA DEWANAND,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NILL,
R/O. NEGINHAL, TQ: BAILAHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI BABU S/O MADIWALAPPA ULAVI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NEGINHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. THE MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO-89, S.V.R COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUSHA SANGAMI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SK KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2013, PASSED
IN MVC.NO.1017/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & ADDL. MACT, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899
MFA No. 100607 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101578 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 20.09.2013
passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal
('Tribunal' for short) in MVC no.1017/2010, these appeals are
filed.
2. Smt.Anusha Sanghami learned counsel appearing
for Sri SK Kayakamath, advocate for appellant submitted,
insurer's appeal was challenging finding of tribunal on liability.
It was submitted, as per claimant at 04.00 p.m., on
26.12.2009, claimant was pillion rider on motorcycle no.KA-
24/J-9138 on Munavalli-Bailhongal road, when its rider was
riding it in rash and negligent manner and near land of Irappa
Patted, lost control and motorcycle toppled down. In accident,
claimant sustained grievous injuries and despite taking
treatment, did not recover fully and therefore filed claim
petition against owner and insurer of motorcycle under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short).
3. On appearance, wherein claim petition was opposed
on all counts, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899
HC-KAR
4. Claimant and Dr.MS Mudakanagoudar deposed as
PWs1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P50. While respondents
examined 4 witnesses as RWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.R1
and R2 and Exs.C1 to C3.
5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by
its driver, vehicle was insured and therefore insurer was liable
to pay compensation assessed by at Rs.2,30,240/- with interest
at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by finding on liability, insurer filed
MFA no.100607/2014 and claimant filed MFA no.101578/2014
for enhancement of compensation.
IN MFA no.100607/2014 :
6. Learned counsel for appellant-insurer submitted
that, there was a delay of 6 days in claimant being admitted to
hospital as indicated in Ex.P7-patient summary sheet. It was
further submitted, even complaint was filed on 17.01.2010
after 23 days as per Ex.P1. In cross-examination, PW1
admitted that, owner of vehicle was from same village. In view
of above, there was a strong suspicion of false claim petition
being foisted against insurer. It was submitted, though
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899
HC-KAR
claimant is stated to have sustained fractural injuries, there
would be no justification for claimant going hospital and
reporting injuries, 6 days after incident, and that too, without
filing police complaint. It was submitted, merely on ground that
insurer had during pendency of claim petition, filed a writ
petition before this Court seeking for reopening of investigation
on ground of false claim petitions being filed against insurer in
collusion between claimants and investigating authorities and
said writ petition was dismissed, cannot be ground of refusal by
Tribunal to consider facts and circumstances in proper
prospect. On said ground sought for allowing appeal.
7. On other hand, Sri HR Latur, learned counsel for
respondent-claimant opposed appeal. It was submitted, insurer
had earlier filed writ petition before this Court seeking for
reopening of investigation in WP no.71112/2012. Same was
dismissed on 30.01.2013. In view of above, petitioner's
allegation of false claim stood negatived by this Court.
Therefore, Tribunal was justified in rejecting such defence and
passing award against insurer. On said ground sought for
dismissal of insurer's appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899
HC-KAR
8. In MFA no.101578/2014, filed for enhancement of
compensation, it was submitted, as on date of accident,
claimant was 38 years of age, working as agriculturist and
earning Rs.5,000/- and sustained fracture of right radius and
lateral epicondyle of humours, Tribunal considered Rs.5,000/-
as monthly income, functional disability at 11%, and awarded
Rs.50,000/- towards 'pain and suffering', Rs.6,240/- towards
'medical expenses', Rs.10,000/- each towards 'nourishment'
and 'attendance/conveyance charges, Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss
of income during treatment period' and Rs.99,000/- towards
'loss of future income' apart from Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of
amenities, future unhappiness, which were on lower side.
9. Counsel for Insurer opposed claimant's appeal.
10. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment, award and record.
11. From above, points that arise for consideration in
both appeals are :
i. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding
insurer is liable to pay compensation?
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899
HC-KAR
ii. Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement
as sought?
12. Point no.1 is answered in affirmative and point no.2
is answered in negative for following:
REASONS :
13. Point no.1 : At outset there is no dispute about
occurrence of accident. Insurer is alleging false implication of
insured vehicle as well as doubting injuries were sustained in
accident caused by insured vehicle. To establish actionable
negligence against insurer, claimant relied on FIR/complaint,
spot panchanama, motor vehicle inspector's report, charge
sheet, certified copy of order sheet in CC no.199/2010, wound
certificate, summary sheet and treatment records as Exs.P1 to
P50.
14. Though there is a delay of 23 days in filing
complaint and delay of 6 days in claimant going to hospital
after accident, in Ex.P7, history of injuries, is stated to be fall
from motorcycle on 26.12.2009 at 04.00 p.m. There are no
specific particulars whether claimant was rider or pillion rider.
In complainant appended to FIR, accident is stated to have
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899
HC-KAR
occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of motorcycle
by its rider and claimant being pillion rider.
15. Moreover, rider of motorcycle is arraigned for
causing accident due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle
and charge sheet filed. Same would be sufficient to
substantiate actionable negligence. In case, insurer disputed
same, it was for insurer to substantiate same by leading
evidence. Mere mention that injuries were due to fall from
motorcycle, would not imply that claimant was rider of
motorcycle and accident was due to own negligence.
16. Normally in case of two wheelers, reference is
vague with both rider and pillion rider being referred to as
riders. Thus, there is some basis for Tribunal's finding about
accident having occurred due to actionable negligence on
account of rider of insured motorcycle. However, appellant
would be justified in contending that merely on account of
dismissal of writ petition, appellant would not be barred from
challenging finding of Tribunal on liability, when this Court while
dismissing insurer's writ petition permitted taking defence by
insurer in claim petition itself. In view of above, for having
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899
HC-KAR
taken defence and failing to substantiate same, there would be
no good or sufficient grounds to interfere with findings. Point
for consideration is answered in affirmative.
17. Point no.2 : On perusal of award, though it is
seen, Tribunal considered notional income at Rs.5,000/- instead
of Rs.5,500/- as on date of accident, considering extent of
disability stated by doctor-PW2 at 35% to right upper limb, and
assessment of functional disability at 11% being on higher side
and offset any scope for enhancement and even amount
awarded towards amenities being on higher side, on overall
consideration, compensation of Rs.2,30,240/- awarded by
Tribunal appears just and proper leaving no scope for
modification. Point no.2 is answered in negative. Consequently
following:
ORDER
i. Both appeals are dismissed.
ii. Judgment and award dated 20.09.2013
passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional
MACT, Bailhongal in MVC no.1017/2010
stands confirmed.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4899
HC-KAR
iii. Amount in deposit if any, in insurer's appeal is
ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal.
iv. Balance amount shall be deposited within a
period of six weeks.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM, CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8
