[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Yallawwa W/O Umesh Sarapannavar vs The General Manager on 17 February, 2026
-1-
MFA No.102805 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102805 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. YALLAWWA
W/O UMESH SARAPANNAVAR
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GORABAL VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT NEERALAKERI,
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587602.
2. SOUMYA
D/O UMESH SARAPANNAVAR
AGE: 9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: GORABAL VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT NEERALAKERI,
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587602.
3. RENUKA
D/O UMESH SARAPANNAVAR
AGE: 7 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: GORABAL VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT NEERALAKERI,
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587602.
B SHELAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench 4. ABHISHEK
S/O UMESH SARAPANNAVAR
AGE: 4 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: GORABAL VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT NEERALAKERI,
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587602.
(APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 MINORS AND
THEY ARE R/BY THEIR GUARDIAN MOTHER
APPELLANT NO.1)
-2-
MFA No.102805 of 2017
5. SMT. GANGAVVA
W/O SHIVAPPA SARAPPANNAVAR
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GORABAL, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591126.
6. SHIVAPPA
S/O DUNDAPPA SARAPANNAVAR
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GORABAL, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591126.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ANAND BAGEWADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BUILDING 87, M.G. ROAD, FORT MUMBAI,
THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DIVISION OFFICER, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.04.2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT., SAUNDATTI IN MVC NO.2600/2013 THE
COMPENSATION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 05.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
-3-
MFA No.102805 of 2017
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants
under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
calling in question the judgment and award dated
03.04.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional
MACT, Saundatti, in M.V.C. No.2600/2013, whereby the
claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act came to be
dismissed.
2. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal
was that on 07.12.2012 the deceased Umesh Sarapannavar
was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-
22/TC-242 with one Basavaraj Dharigonda as pillion rider. It
was alleged that a truck coming from the opposite direction
in a rash manner caused the deceased to lose control of the
motor cycle, resulting in the vehicle dashing against a guard
stone, due to which the deceased sustained grievous
injuries and later died on 29.12.2012. The claim petition
was filed by the wife, minor children and parents of the
deceased seeking compensation from the insurer of the
motor cycle under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the pleadings
and evidence, dismissed the claim petition holding that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased
himself and that the insurer could not be held liable. Being
aggrieved by the same, appellants - claimants have filed
this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended
that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim
petition. It was submitted that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent act of an unknown vehicle and that
the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence on
record.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
insurance company supported the impugned judgment and
contended that the deceased himself was riding the motor
cycle, that no third-party vehicle was involved, and that a
claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act itself was
not maintainable.
6. On consideration of the submissions and the
material on record, it is not in dispute that the deceased
himself was riding the motor cycle involved in the accident
and that no offending vehicle was identified.
7. The complaint and charge sheet placed on record
do not establish negligence on the part of any other vehicle.
The materials clearly indicate that the deceased lost control
of the motor cycle and dashed against a guard stone. When
the deceased himself was the rider of the motor cycle and
the accident occurred due to his own negligence, he cannot
be treated as a third party for the purpose of Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act. The liability of the insurer under
Section 166 of the Act arises only when the accident is
caused due to the rash and negligent act of another person
or vehicle. In a case of self-negligence by the owner-cum-
rider, the claim under Section 166 of the Act is not
maintainable. The Tribunal has rightly held that the claim
petition itself was not maintainable. Consequently, the
present appeal filed against such dismissal is also not
maintainable.
8. Even otherwise, no material is placed before this
Court to show that the findings recorded by the Tribunal
suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is not
maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
RSH, CT:VP
