[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Smt.Devakka on 13 February, 2026
-1-
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101641 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MOOD COMPLEX, HOSAPETE,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
TP HUB HUBBALLI,
ENKAY COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI,
REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. DEVAKKA
W/O. RAMANNA HUNAGUND,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
2. KUMAR AJIT,
S/O. RAMANNA HUNAGUND,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
3. KUMARI ASHWARYA
D/O. RAMANNA HUNAGUND,
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
4. KUMARI AKSHATA
D/O. RAMANNA HUNAGUND,
-2-
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE THE
RESIDENTS OF BACHANAKI VILLAGE,
TQ: MUNDGOD, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
THE RESPONDENT NO.3 & 4 BEING MINORS
REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO.1.
5. K G THOMAS S/O. GEORGE,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. ARASHINAGERI VILLAGE,
TQ: MUNDAGOD, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
(OWNER OF THE TRACTOR-TROLLEY
BEARING-NO.KA-31/T-975, T-9766)
6. CHANNAVEERANAGOUDA
S/O. CHANNABASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: BACHANAKI VILLAGE,
TQ: MUNDAGOD, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
(DIVER OF THE TRACTOR-TROLLEY
BEARING-NO.KA-31/T-975, T-9766)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R4;
NOTICE TO R6 IS SERVED; R5-APPEAL IS DISMISSED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH MVC
NO.53/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDL. MACT YELLAPUR, EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE
THE AWARD DATED 26-11-2015 AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 30.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
This is the appeal filed by the respondent No.3-
insurer under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short 'M.V. Act') challenging the judgment and
award dated 26.11.2015 passed in M.V.C. No.53/2009 on
the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T.
Yellapura (for short 'Tribunal').
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they
were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience and
clarity.
3. The claimants have filed the claim petition
praying for compensation in respect of the accident that has
taken place on 09.05.2008 at 09.30 p.m., involving the
tractor-trolley bearing registration No.KA-31/T975/T9766 at
Masankatte Road in Bachanaki village, Mundgod taluk. Due
to the said accident, Sri.Mahaveer Shivappa Yegappanavar
died due to accidental injuries sustained by him in the
hospital. It is the contention of claimants that deceased was
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
hale and healthy during his lifetime and was doing
agriculture and earning more than ₹.8,000/- per month.
Due to his untimely death, the claimants being his wife and
children lost earning member of their family and hence
prayed for compensation under different heads.
4. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 being the driver and
owner of the tractor-trolley remained absent and placed
exparte before the trial Court.
5. It is respondent No.3-Insurer who has contested
the petition by filing its objection wherein he had denied the
petition averments in toto and further took contention that
the accident was not at all taken place as alleged in the
claim petition. It is further contented that the deceased was
traveling in the trolley and tried to get down from trolley by
jumping from it even before the driver has stopped the
tractor and because of that attempt he fell down from the
tractor-trolley and thus claimants are not entitled for any
compensation. It is further contented that as per the FIR
filed on the day of accident before police, it is mentioned as
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
fall from tractor. Four months afterwards a private
complaint is filed stating that deceased was pedestrian. This
is concocted only to get compensation from the
respondents. He admitted that policy of the vehicle was in
force. Further, the driver was not having valid and effective
driving license to drive the motor vehicle. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of petition with costs.
6. Based on these pleadings, on behalf of claimants,
claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1 apart from examining
P.W.2, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 before the Tribunal. On
behalf of respondents, one witness is examined as R.W.1.
Apart from marking Exs.R.1 to R.4 and closed their side
before the Tribunal.
7. After recording evidence of both sides and
hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the claimants have proved the accident that
had taken place on 09.05.2008 at 09.30 p.m., due to rash
and negligent driving of driver of the tractor and trolley and
because of that the deceased died and thus claimants are
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
entitled for total compensation of ₹.3,28,000/- with interest
at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization under several heads.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award,
the insurer has filed the present appeal.
9. Heard arguments of both sides.
10. Learned counsel for appellant would submit his
arguments that the accident has taken place because the
deceased was inmate of the trolley and fall from the trolley
and not because of rash and negligent driving of driver of
the tractor. Hence, immediately FIR No.98/2008 was
registered. But, subsequently, only to get compensation,
second FIR based on private complaint was registered as
per Ex.P.1 in Crime No.27/2009, which is nothing but abuse
of process of law. Tribunal has not considered this aspect
and wrongly granted compensation by allowing the petition.
Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
11. Learned counsel Sri.B.M.Patil for respondent
Nos.1, 3 & 4 would submit that the respondents have
produced ample material before the Tribunal to show that
the accident happened because of rash and negligent
driving of the driver of tractor and the deceased was
pedestrian and not inmate of the trolley. P.W.1 and PW.2
clearly and categorically established these facts. P.W.2 is
not only a complainant but also an eye witness and
supported the contention of claimants. Considering these
aspects, rightly the Tribunal has allowed the petition and
granted compensation to claimants which need not be
interfered with. Hence, prayed for dismissal of appeal.
12. Having heard arguments of both sides, verifying
the appeal papers along with trial Court records, the point
that arises for consideration is
"Whether the appellant proves that the death of
Ramanna was due to fall from trolley and not because of
rash and negligent driving of driver of the tractor and
deceased was not a pedestrian?"
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
13. The finding of this Court on the above point is in
'affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
It is the contention of claimants that the deceased was
a pedestrian and a tractor-trolley driven by the respondent
No.1 it's driver rashly and negligently and dashed against
the husband of the claimant No.1-Devakka and he
sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to those
injuries.
14. It is the contention of the claimants that even
though, it is informed to the Police, the Police have not
taken any action and hence, P.W.2 has filed private
complaint before the Court which was referred to the Police
and then Police have taken action and filed charge-sheet.
The charge-sheet is against the driver of the tractor-trolley.
Hence, claimants have established rashness and negligence
on the part of driver of the tractor-trolley. The vehicle was
duly insured with respondent No.3.
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
15. It is the contention of the respondent No.3 that
on the date of accident, the complaint was given to Police
and the same was registered in Crime No.98/2008.
Panchanama was also drawn on the same day. Further, the
investigation was in progress and based on this FIR
No.98/2008, charge sheet was also filed by the
Investigating Officer alleging that the driver of the tractor
and trolley was driving tractor rash and negligently and has
made the tractor to fall on a big ditch which resulted in fall
of Ramanna who was traveling in the Trolley along with the
complainant and after he fall down, the left side wheel of
the tractor passed through the chest of Ramanna which
caused grievous injuries to him and he succumbed to those
injuries and thereby the accused has committed the
offence.
16. On perusal of the FIR cum Complaint as per
Ex.P.2, Panchanama as per Ex.P.3 and other documents,
based on which charge sheet is field, they clearly and
categorically reveal that the deceased was traveling in
- 10 -
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
trolley along with P.W.1 of present case. P.W.2 of present
case was the complainant in that case. P.W.2-the first
informant after lodging this complaint has filed private
complaint before the Court and it is referred to the
concerned police station for investigation and based on it,
FIR No.27/2009 was registered. In the said private
complaint, it is stated that the deceased was pedestrian and
the driver of tractor has driven it rashly and negligently and
dashed against the pedestrian at about 09.30 p.m., on
09.05.2008 at the spot of incident and caused the accident
and then the injured was taken to hospital and he died in
the hospital. It is stated in the private complaint annexed to
Ex.P.1-FIR No.27/2009 that immediately after the accident,
it was informed to the police; but, police have not taken
proper action and hence without any option, he has filed the
private complaint. Based on this private complaint, the
aforesaid FIR is registered as stated above. However, Ex.P.2
is the FIR No.98/2008. This case is registered based on the
complaint given by same complainant. Investigation is
conducted in said FIR No.98/2008. According to it, the
- 11 -
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
deceased was traveling in the trolley of the tractor, because
of rash and negligent driving of driver of the tractor, he fall
from the tractor and wheels of the tractor passed through
his chest and because of that he sustained grievous injuries
and while taking him to the hospital on that day at 11.00
p.m., he died at the hospital. Hence, this statement was
given by P.W.2 before the police who came to the hospital
and recorded said statement. Based on it, FIR No.98/2008
was registered. Based on Ex.P.2, FIR No.98/2008, the spot
panchanama, spot sketch, inquest panchanama, P.M.
report, Motor Vehicles Accident Report were prepared and
based on these documents i.e., after completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge
sheet before the jurisdictional Court and it is registered with
C.C.No.207/2008. As discussed above, in this charge sheet,
it is specifically recited that the deceased was traveling in
trolley and before stopping the vehicle, the driver of the
tractor drove the tractor on the ditch which resulted in fall
of the deceased along with complainant who was traveling
- 12 -
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
in the trolley and because of that he sustained injuries and
died on the same day at 11.00 p.m.
17. In this regard, in the cross-examination, P.W.2
has admitted that he has given complaint about this
accident on 09.05.2008 itself and he admitted his signature
on said complaint. He further admitted that on that day
once the mud was taken after unloading the mud in the
land of deceased; while going back to bring another load of
mud, the alleged accident had taken place. He admitted
that he along with two more laborers had been to the lands
of deceased on that day to take out the mud. After such
unloading of the mud from the tractor-trolley again while
going back to the lands of deceased, this accident had taken
place. In this regard the charge sheet is produced by
respondent-insurer as per Ex.R.2.
18. The Tribunal has not examined the veracity of
the evidence of P.W.2. It has not observed that in the
charge sheet, there is specific mention that deceased was
traveling in the trolley and he fell from the trolley and
- 13 -
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
sustained injuries. The lodging of private complaint before
Court is only an afterthought and misleading. It was lodged
on 23.09.2008; whereas, as discussed above charge sheet
was filed afterwards i.e. on 17.12.2008 with CC
No.207/2008. Any way, the investigation was conducted
based on the earlier complaint as discussed above.
Postmortem report, inquest report, spot panchanama, spot
sketch and all other relevant documents were recorded in
Crime No.98/2008 and not in this FIR No.27/2009. Thus,
there is clear recital in the charge sheet. Hence, there was
no occasion for the complainant-P.W.2 to file one more
private complaint before Court. Lodging up of second
complaint that too private complaint before Court is nothing
but abuse of process of law. However, the Tribunal has not
considered these aspects and came to the wrong conclusion
that the deceased was pedestrian and not traveling in the
trolley. The insurance policy coverage will not be there for a
person who was traveling in the trolley. Hence, only to get
compensation, the second FIR is concocted by filing private
complaint before Court. Hence, the accident as alleged in
- 14 -
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
the complaint as per Ex.P.1 itself is not proved. On the
other hand, the accident as narrated in complaint as per
Ex.P.2 was proved. Thus, the Tribunal ought not to have
decreed the claim petition without establishing the use of
motor vehicle i.e. rash and negligent driving of driver of the
motor vehicle, and without proving that the deceased was
pedestrian, claimants were not at all entitled for any
compensation. It is only fall from the trolley and deceased
was not a pedestrian. Hence, the finding of trial Court is
completely erroneous and it requires interference.
19. Accordingly, point under consideration is
answered and this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
1. Appeal filed by the respondent No.3-insurer under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is
allowed by setting aside the judgment and award
dated 26.11.2015 in MVC No.53/2009 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Yallapur.
- 15 -
MFA NO.101641 OF 2016
2. Consequently, judgment and award dated
26.11.2015 passed in MVC No.53/2009 by the
Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Yallapur is
hereby dismissed.
3. .The amount if any, in deposit be transmitted to
the Tribunal with a direction to refund the same to
respondent No.3 on proper identification.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
HMB
CT-MCK
