[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Vijaya Mahantesha Katta, S/O Lingappa vs Honnur Bee, W/O Varkali Nazeer on 17 February, 2026
-1-
MFA No.102470 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.102470 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
VIJAYA MAHANTESHA KATTA,
S/O LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HINDU,
OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE
BEARING REGN NO.KA-35/R-8797,
R/O: 2/90, NO-10, MUDDAPUR VILLAGE,
KAMPLI-583001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HONNUR BEE,
W/O VARKALI NAZEER,
AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. ALFIA,
Digitally signed
by
S/O LATE V. NAZEER,
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench 3. NOUSHAD,
S/O LATE. V. NAZEER,
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
HONNUR BEE RESPONDENT NO.1
4. SANNA BAVA SAB VARKALI,
S/O HUSSAIN SAB,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
-2-
MFA No.102470 of 2017
5. HUSSAIN BEE,
W/O VARKALI SANNA BAVA SAB,
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
ALL ARE R/O. 2ND WARD, MARIYAMMANAHALLI,
HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583201.
6. PRAKASHA,
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGE. 31 YEARS, HINDU,
DRIVER OF BAJAJ DISCOVERY
MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-35/R-8797,
R/O: 6TH WARD, MARIYAMMANAHALLI,
HOSAPETE-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
NOTICE TO R6 IS SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.03.2017 PASSED
IN MVC NO.249/2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE IN SO FAR AS THE APPELLANT IS
CONCERNED.
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.102470 of 2017
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-owner of the
vehicle under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, calling in question the judgment and award passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MVC No.249/2016.
2. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, allowed the
claim petition and fastened liability upon the appellant-
owner to pay compensation to the claimants. Being
aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the owner of
the vehicle has preferred the present appeal contending
that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order without
impleading necessary and proper parties and without
affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the accident in question involved multiple vehicles and that
certain necessary parties were not impleaded before the
Tribunal. It is contended that due to non-impleadment of
such parties, the Tribunal could not have effectively
adjudicated upon the real cause of the accident and the
liability arising therefrom.
4. It is further submitted that the appellant intends
to implead the said necessary parties and seeks an
opportunity to place all relevant materials on record. Hence,
a prayer is made to remand the matter to the Tribunal for
fresh consideration.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
supports the impugned judgment. However, he fairly
submits that if this Court is inclined to remand the matter,
appropriate directions may be issued to ensure expeditious
disposal.
6. Having considered the submissions of both sides
and on perusal of the material on record, it is evident that
the appellant is seeking an opportunity to implead
necessary parties, which appears to be reasonable for
proper and effective adjudication of the dispute.
7. Proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal are summary in nature and substantial justice
should prevail over technicalities. If necessary parties are
not before the Tribunal, there is every possibility of
incomplete adjudication, leading to further litigation.
8. In the interest of justice, the appellant deserves
an opportunity to implead the necessary parties and the
matter requires fresh consideration by the Tribunal after
affording reasonable opportunity to all concerned.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and award passed in MVC
No.249/2016 is set aside. The matter is
remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in
accordance with law.
(iii) The appellant is permitted to implead the
necessary parties. All parties are permitted to
file their written statements and additional
pleadings, if any.
(iv) The Tribunal shall afford reasonable
opportunity to all parties to adduce evidence
and shall dispose of the matter afresh in
accordance with law.
(v) The parties are directed to appear before the
Tribunal on a date to be fixed by the Tribunal,
without awaiting fresh notice.
(vi) The Tribunal shall endeavor to dispose of the
matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of six months from the date of
appearance of the parties.
(vii) All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
Rsh, CT:VP
