[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mubeenabanu vs The Managing Director on 9 January, 2026

                                                    -1-
                                                                 NC: 2026:KHC-D:210
                                                            MFA No. 23145 of 2013


                          HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

                              DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026

                                              BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23145 OF 2013 (MV-)


                         BETWEEN:
                         1.    SMT. MUBEENABANU
                               W/O. T. SUBAN,
                               AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                               R/O: RAJIV NAGAR,
                               TANK ROAD, KOTTUR,
                               TQ: KUDLAGI,
                               DIST: BELLARY.

                         2.    KUMAR ABUBAKAR SHIDDIQ
                               S/O. T. SUBAN,
                               AGE: 3 YEARS,
                               MINOR REPRESENTED BY MINOR,
BHARATHI
HM                             GUARDIAN HIS MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1.
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGHCOURT
OF KARNATAKA
                         3.    T. KASIMSAB
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
                               S/O. T. DADASAB,
                               AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR,
                               R/O: RAJIV NAGAR,
                               TANK ROAD, KOTTUR,
                               TQ: KUDLAGI,
                               DIST: BELLARY.

                         4.    SMT. T. IMAMBI
                               W/O. T. KASIMSAB,
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC-D:210
                                   MFA No. 23145 of 2013


HC-KAR




     AGE: 54 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O: RAJIV NAGAR,
     TANK ROAD, KOTTUR,
     TQ: KUDLAGI,
     DIST: BELLARY.
                                              ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.   THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
     AND SELF INSURANCE FUND,
     N.W.K.S.R.T.C. GOKUL ROAD,
     HUBLI, TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

2.   THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
     N.W.K.S.R.T.C. GADAG DIVISION, GADAG.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
   NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)


     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SETASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29-04-2011, PASSED BY
THE LEARNED DISTRICT COURT AND MACT AT GADAG, IN MVC
NO.157/2011 AND AWARD COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE
CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                   -3-
                                                 NC: 2026:KHC-D:210
                                           MFA No. 23145 of 2013


HC-KAR




                         ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.

Act') praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated

29.04.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.157/2011 on the file of the

learned District Judge and M.A.C.T., Gadag (in short, 'the

Tribunal') dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 163-A

of M.V.Act.

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they

were before Trial Court for sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The claimants being the legal heirs of deceased

T.Suban Sab have filed the claim petition under Section 163-A

of M.V.Act, contending that the deceased met with a road traffic

accident on 18.10.2010 involving a New TATA ACE goods vehicle

bearing registration No.KA-35/TR-1610Tr/10-11 and

N.W.K.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA-26/F-671 at

Binkadakatti Forest Office. It is the contention of claimants that

there is no fault on the part of deceased in causing the accident.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:210

HC-KAR

Claimants contended that they are the legal heirs of deceased

and entitled for compensation.

4. After receipt of notice, respondents appeared through

their counsel and filed written statement, wherein they have

taken contention that the accident happened due to rash and

negligent driving of the deceased in driving TATA ACE goods

vehicle and there is no fault on the side of N.W.K.R.T.C. bus

driver. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On behalf of claimants, claimant No.3 was examined

as P.W.1 apart from marking Exs.P-1 to P-17 and on behalf of

the respondent, RW-1 was examined before the Tribunal.

6. After recording the evidence of both sides and

hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal has dismissed the

claim petition on the ground that the deceased was the cause for

committing the accident and hence, the claimants are not

entitled for compensation.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the

claimants/appellants are before this Court.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:210

HC-KAR

8. Heard arguments of learned counsels Sri Deepak

Maganur and Sri S.C. Bhuti for appellants and respondent No.1

respectively. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that

this is the petition filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and

hence, the Tribunal ought not to have gone into the details of

negligence and it ought to have allowed the petition by awarding

compensation to the claimants and thus, the judgment of the

Tribunal is erroneous and prayed for allowing the appeal and to

allow the petition filed before the Tribunal.

9. Learned counsel for respondents Sri S.C. Bhuti would

submit that P.W.1 in his evidence has categorically admitted

that the deceased was having income of ₹.1,80,000/- per annum

and thus, the petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is not

maintainable because the income of deceased shall be less than

₹.40,000/- to attract said provision. Hence, prayed for dismissal

of the appeal.

10. Having heard arguments of both sides and verified

the appeal papers along with the Trial Court records, the only

point that arises for consideration is

NC: 2026:KHC-D:210

HC-KAR

"Whether dismissal of the claim petition by the

Tribunal is erroneous and it needs interference?"

The finding of this Court on the above point is in

negative for the following reasons:

i) Admittedly, the claimants have filed the petition

under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. Hence,

considering the negligence of the driver of the

bus or TATA ACE vehicle is not required to

decide the petition and the only point that

claimants have to establish that deceased died

due to the accident occurred arising out of the

use of motor vehicle in question.

ii) The admitted facts are that the deceased was

driving TATA ACE goods vehicle bearing

registration No.KA-35/TR-1610Tr/10-11 and the

driver of N.W.K.R.T.C. bus was driving the

K.S.R.T.C. bus on 18.01.2010 at 12.15 noon on

Gadag-Hubballi Road, near Binkadakatti

opposite to Forest Office and because of collision

NC: 2026:KHC-D:210

HC-KAR

between two vehicles the accident has caused

and due to the accident, the driver of TATA ACE

has died and claimants are his legal heirs.

11. Now the only point to be considered is whether

petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is maintainable.

12. In the affidavit evidence at paragraph No.3, P.W.1

has stated that the deceased was earning ₹.10,000/- from

transporting the goods from one place to another and was

getting ₹.5,000/- per month from driving and totally he was

earning ₹.15,000/- per month and his annual income was

₹1,80,000/-.

13. To file a petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, the

maximum income of the deceased shall be ₹.40,000/- per

annum as per the second schedule of M.V. Act. Admittedly, the

deceased was getting ₹1,80,000/- per annum at the time of his

death as per the averments made in the affidavit evidence itself.

Hence, the petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act is not

maintainable.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:210

HC-KAR

14. This fact of income of deceased is not only stated in

the affidavit evidence, but also admitted in the cross-

examination of P.W.1. He has deposed in the cross-examination

that "My son was earning ₹15,000/- per month. It is true to

suggest that my son was earning ₹1,80,000/- per annum."

15. Only to get compensation under Section 163-A of MV

Act, again the P.W.1 was recalled and filed his additional affidavit

evidence wherein he had stated that the deceased was having

income of only ₹3,330/- per month. However, again in the cross-

examination held on 30.08.2011, he admitted that in his earlier

affidavit evidence, he has stated that the income of deceased

was ₹15,000/- per month and getting ₹1,84,000/- per annum

and he has admitted said fact in his earlier evidence.

16. Once he has admitted in the evidence about the

income of deceased, he cannot be permitted to withdraw such

admission. Admittedly, the deceased was driving hired vehicles

and also owned a TATA ACE goods vehicle which was purchased

by him a few days prior to the accident. Under those

circumstances, definitely the income of deceased cannot be

₹40,000/- per annum and it should be more than that.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:210

HC-KAR

17. If all these aspects are considered, definitely the

petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is not maintainable.

18. The Tribunal has not considered these aspects, but

only considered the aspect of negligence and dismissed the

petition. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal in dismissing the

petition are not correct. But the finding of Trial Court in

dismissing the petition is proper. Hence, this Court holds that the

finding of Trial Court needs no interference. Accordingly, the

point under consideration is answered in negative and this

Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 is dismissed by confirming the

judgment and award dated 29.04.2013 passed in

M.V.C. No.157/2011 on the file of the District Judge

and M.A.C.T., Gadag.