Vithal S/O Fakkirappa Anchi vs Sangappa S/O Basavantappa Merlimani
2026 Latest Caselaw 2188 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Vithal S/O Fakkirappa Anchi vs Sangappa S/O Basavantappa Merlimani on 11 March, 2026

Author: Ravi V.Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani

                                                         -1-
                                                                      NC: 2026:KHC-D:3898
                                                                 MFA No. 100666 of 2015


                             HC-KAR



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
                                   DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                                   BEFORE
                                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
                            MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100666 OF 2015 (MV-I)
                            BETWEEN:
                            SHRI VITHAL S/O FAKKIRAPPA ANCHI,
                            AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, NOW NIL,
                            R/O: BASAVESHWAR ASHRAM BADAVANI,
                            H.NO.424/E/1, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                                                               ...APPELLANT
                            (BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
                            AND:
                            1.    SHRI SANGAPPA S/O BASAVANTAPAPA MERLIMANI,
                                  AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                                  R/O: H.NO.421 B, MRUTYUNJAY NAGAR,
                                  BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                  SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS-

                            1.A   SMT. SUMITRA W/O PRAKSH BASAPURI,
                                  AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                                  R/O: 421 B, MRUTYUNJAYA NAGAR,
                                  BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

                            1.B SMT. SAVITA W/O MRUTYUNJAYA CHINAGUNDI,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
                                AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
KATTIMANI

Digitally signed by
                                R/O: 421 B, MRUTYUNJAYA NAGAR,
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.16 09:39:41
+0000
                                BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

                            1.C BASAVARAJ S/O SANGAPPA MELINAMANI,
                                AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                                R/O: 421 B, MRUTYUNJAYA NAGAR,
                                BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

                            2.    THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
                                  THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                                  CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.
                                                                            ...RESPONDENTS
                            (BY SRI SS KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR
                                SRI NR KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                                NOTICE TO R1(A) TO R1(C)- SERVED)
                                 -2-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC-D:3898
                                        MFA No. 100666 of 2015


 HC-KAR




      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT,    AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
27.10.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.2042/2012, ON THE FILE OF
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, BELGAUM, DISMISSING
THE CLAIM PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF M.V. ACT & ETC.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,                 THIS   DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

                          ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 27.10.2014 passed

by Presiding Officer, FTC-III, Belgaum in MVC no.2042/2012,

whereby claim petition came to be dismissed, this appeal was

filed.

2. Sri HR Latur, learned counsel for appellant submitted

that appeal was by claimant. It was submitted on 12.11.2011,

claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle no.KA-24/L-2065 at

8:30 p.m. near Metgud Mill, Bailhongal when rider of another

motorcycle no.KA-24/H-1718 rode it in rash and negligent

manner and dashed against claimant's motorcycle causing

accident. Due to which, claimant sustained grievous injuries and

admitted to General Hospital, Bailhongal and thereafter shifted to

KLE Hospital, Belagavi where he took inpatient treatment.

Despite which, he did not recover fully and sustained loss of

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3898

HC-KAR

earning capacity. Claiming compensation, he filed claim petition

under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against owner and

insurer of offending motorcycle.

3. On appearance, claim petition was opposed on all

counts. Both owner and insurer denied and disputed occurrence

of accident due to rash and negligent riding of insured

motorcycle and alleged non-joinder of necessary parties. Even

violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and rider

holding valid and effective driving licence were disputed.

4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and

recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself as PW-1 and

Dr.Suresh Karlatti as PW-2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P16.

Respondent did not lead oral evidence, but got marked insurance

policy as Ex.R1 with consent.

5. On consideration, Tribunal dismissed claim petition

on two reasons. Firstly, that complaint was filed after delay of 3

days of accident and secondly, on ground that, rider of offending

motorcycle did not have driving licence to ride motorcycle as on

date of accident. Aggrieved, present appeal was filed.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3898

HC-KAR

6. It was firstly submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in

case of Ranjeet and Anr. v. Abdul Kayam Neb and Anr.,

reported in 2026 ACJ 239 had held claimant could rely on

charge sheet to establish actionable negligence against offending

vehicle. In instant case, Police had after investigation, filed

charge sheet against rider of motorcycle who pleaded guilty to

charge of causing accident by rash and negligent riding. Under

such circumstances, dismissal of claim petition would not be

justified.

7. It was further submitted, other reason assigned that

rider of offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving

licence as on date of accident would also be untenable. Even if

insurer could claim discharge of liability due to violation of terms

and conditions of policy, owner of offending vehicle could not

escape answering claims of third party injured. On said grounds

submitted impugned award called for interference.

8. On other hand, Sri Sharanappa S.Koliwad, learned

counsel appearing for Sri NR Kuppelur, Advocate for insurer

supported award. It was submitted, finding of Tribunal about

untenability of claim petition would be justified as there was

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3898

HC-KAR

unexplained delay of 3 days in filing complaint.

Admission/treatment records of hospitals would indicate that

claimant was accompanied by his brother-in-law. Nothing

prevented his brother-in-law or father to have filed complaint

immediately. Besides, on appreciation of evidence Tribunal

dismissed claim petition. Therefore, sought dismissal of appeal.

9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,

award and record.

10. In this appeal, claimant is assailing dismissal of claim

petition. There is no dispute about occurrence of accident on

12.11.2011 and in which claimant is stated to have sustained

injuries and took treatment for same at Government Hospital,

Bailhongal and thereafter at KLE Hospital, Belagavi. However,

Tribunal dismissed claim petition on ground of claimant failing to

establish involvement of insured vehicle. Perusal of records

reveal that on claimant filing IA.no.1, hospital treatment records

from 12.11.2011 to 05.12.2011 with regard to inpatient

no.445372 and 446502 were called for from KLE Hospital,

Belagavi.