[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shashank Shailendra Terdal vs M. Ramdas S/O. Murthuswamy on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4514
MFA No. 101689 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101689 OF 2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI SHASHANK SHAILENDRA TERDAL,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. 24, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, BELAGAVI.
FOR SELF AND FOR PA HOLDER OF
MR. SANJAY LAXMAN CHAVAN,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. KILLUR BUILDING, LAXMI NAGAR,
NEAR GURUPRASAD COLONY, WATER TANK, BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. M. RAMDAS S/O MURTHUSWAMY,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OTTAKULAM, KUDUR,
VESNAM, [PO] NAMAKAL-TAMIL NADU.
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, SUBRAMANYAM BUILDING, NO.1,
CLUB HOUSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600002.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GN RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT;
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.25 09:36:46
+0000
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.02.2015, PASSED IN
MVC NO.578/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BELAGAVI,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF M.V. ACT
& ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4514
MFA No. 101689 of 2015
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 12.02.2015 passed
by I Additional District Judge & MACT-II, Belagavi in MVC
no.578/2011, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for appellant
submits that, appeal was by claimant challenging dismissal of
claim petition. It was submitted, on 09.11.2011, claimant along
with others were travelling in a Tata Indica Car no.KA-22/A-8350
belonging to Sanjay Laxman Chavan from Belagavi towards
Hubballi, when driver of Truck no.TN.28/P.4577 drove it in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against car. In accident,
claimant Shashank S. Terdal sustained grievous injuries.
Claiming that owner had appointed claimant as Power of
Attorney in respect to claims for damages, claim petition was
filed on his own behalf as well as on behalf of owner of car. And
despite service of notice, owner did not appear and was placed
ex parte. Only insurer of lorry opposed claim on all counts.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4514
HC-KAR
3. Other claim petitions arising out of same accident
were clubbed. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence.
4. Claimants examined themselves as PWs1 to PW5 and
got marked Exs.P1 to P19. Respondent-insurer did not lead
evidence, but got marked copy of insurance policy as Ex.R1 with
consent. On consideration, tribunal dismissed claim petition.
Aggrieved, appeal was filed.
5. At outset, learned counsel for claimant sought to
contend that claim petition was filed not only for compensation
due to injuries sustained in accident but also for vehicle damages
filed on behalf of owner of vehicle namely Sanjay Laxman
Chavan. Merely on ground that claim petition was filed in name
of claimant himself, ignoring that it was filed not only for self but
as Power of Attorney holder of RC owner, Tribunal dismissed
claim petition on technicality. It was submitted, even in case this
Court were to dismiss, liberty could be granted for filing of claim
petition by RC owner himself for vehicle damages against insurer
of offending lorry. It was further submitted, while dismissing
claim petition, other reason assigned by Tribunal was that
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4514
HC-KAR
damages for which compensation was sought were not in
consonance with damages noted by Motor Vehicle Inspector,
whose report was marked as Ex.P4. It was submitted that said
observation would be contrary to material on record. It was
submitted that damages noted on vehicle were very much in
consonance with Motor Vehicles Inspector's report and sought for
reversal of finding by awarding appropriate compensation and
prayed for allowing appeal.
6. None appears for respondents.
7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,
award and record.
8. From above, since only claimant is in appeal against
dismissal of claim petition, points that arise for consideration
are:
i. Whether dismissal of claim petition calls for
interference by this Court?
ii. If so, what compensation to be awarded?
9. Points no.1 & 2 : At outset it has to be noted, there
is no dispute that RC owner of car as on date of accident was one
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4514
HC-KAR
Sanjay Laxman Chavan. There is also no dispute about said
vehicle meeting with accident on 09.11.2011 on Belagavi-
Hubballi National Highway after collision with lorry owned by
respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2. Claim
petition was filed seeking compensation for injuries sustained by
claimant as well as for damages sustained by car belonging to
Sanjay Laxman Chavan.
10. There is no dispute about fact that claim for damages
can be filed only by RC owner. Even if claimant was a Power of
Attorney holder of RC owner, he ought to have filed petition for
compensation and pursue same on behalf of RC owner.
Unfortunately, even copy of Power of Attorney has not been got
marked by claimant. Besides, claim petition is filed in name of
claimant himself. Therefore at best, claim petition could be
considered as a personal injury claim petition and dealt with as
such.
11. While passing impugned award, Tribunal noted that
Ex.P5, Ex.P16 to Ex.P18, wound certificates relied upon by
claimants did not record any external injuries to claimant.
Consequently, dismissal of claim petition by Tribunal insofar as
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4514
HC-KAR
personal injury claim cannot be stated to be suffering from any
perversity calling for interference.
12. For aforesaid reasons appeal would not sustain.
Though liberty is prayed to file application for compensation on
behalf of RC owner, appeal having been pending for 11 years
and 15 years having lapsed after occurrence of accident.
13. Owner being fully aware of his rights and obligations
merely executed Power of Attorney and failed to ensure filing of
appropriate petition. Therefore, liberty cannot be granted after
such long period of time, which would gravely prejudice
respondents. Points no.1 and 2 are answered accordingly and
appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM, CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14
