[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shreedhar Subray Madival vs Venkatesh G Gouda on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4631
MFA No. 24606 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24606 OF 2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI SHREEDHAR SUBRAY MADIVAL,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
2. SMT.MANGALA W/O SHREEDHAR MADIVAL,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
BOTH ARE R/O HOSAKULI, HONNAVAR, KARWAR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.INDIRA M. NAIK, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)
AND:
1. SHRI VENKATESH G. GOUDA,
REGD. OWNER OF AUTO RICKSHAW
BEARING NO.KA-47/1091,
R/O HARKADE, DIVIGI KUMATA, U.K. DISTRICT.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KAIKINI ROAD, KARWAR.
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
...RESPONDENTS
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.27 09:25:10
+0000 (BY SRI MK SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2011 IN MVC
NO.9/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T. AT
HONNAVAR AND ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4631
MFA No. 24606 of 2012
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 22.11.2011
passed by Additional MACT, Honnavar ('Tribunal' for short)
in MVC no.9/2010, this appeal is filed.
2. Though matter is of year 2012, there is no
representation from any party. Since appeal is 13 years old,
it is taken up for disposal based on available material.
3. Appeal is by claimant challenging dismissal of
claim petition. As per impugned award, claim petition was
filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV
Act' for short) stating that on 17.08.2009, Tanuja
Shreedhar Madival was travelling in an auto rickshaw no.KA-
47/1091 along with her mother from Kumta towards Manki,
when an unknown vehicle dashed against auto rickshaw
from behind. In accident, Tanuja sustained grievous injuries
and died during treatment. It was alleged that driver of auto
rickshaw was driving it in rash and negligent manner on
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4631
HC-KAR
highway and accident occurred due to his rash and
negligence driving also.
4. On service of notice, respondents/owner and
insurer entered appearance. Owner filed objections denying
claim petition averments in general and specifically denying
accident had occurred due to negligent driving of auto
rickshaw by its driver. It was contended, accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of unknown vehicle that
had dashed against auto rickshaw. It was stated auto was
duly insured with respondent no.2 - insurer and driver was
having valid licence as on date of accident and therefore,
owner was entitled for indemnification.
5. Respondent no.2 - insurer opposed claim
petition on all counts including violation of terms and
conditions of policy and seeking for exoneration of insurer.
6. Based on pleading, Tribunal framed following
issues.
"1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 17.8.2009 at
about 6.00 p.m. near Ramaleela Hospital in Manaki
of Kumta taluk the deceased Tanuja Shreedhar
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4631
HC-KAR
Madival being passenger in the Auto rickshaw
bearing No.KA-47/1091 had met with an accident
due to rash and negligent driving of the said Auto
rickshaw by its driver and the deceased Tanuja
Shreedhar Madival succumbed to injuries sustained
in the accident as averred?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation and if so, what amount and from
whom?
3. What order and award?"
7. Claimant no.2 deposed as PW1 and got marked
Exhibits P1 to P11. Owner deposed as RW1 and got marked
Exhibits R1 to R6. Insurer did not lead evidence.
8. On consideration, Tribunal held issue no.1 in
negative, issue no.2 as not surviving for consideration and
issue no.3 by dismissing claim petition. Aggrieved present
appeal is filed.
9. Grounds urged in memorandum of appeal are
that judgment and award passed by Tribunal was contrary
to material on record and Section 147 of MV Act provided
for seeking compensation in case of death or bodily injury
caused by or arising out of use of vehicle in a public place.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4631
HC-KAR
Same would justify claim as arising out of use of vehicle.
Therefore, dismissal of claim petition was not justified.
There is no representation on behalf of insurer.
10. Perused impugned judgment and record.
11. Appeal is by claimant challenging dismissal of
claim petition. Therefore, point that would arise for
consideration is:
'Whether dismissal of claim petition was justified
or whether claimant was entitled for
compensation?'
12. Perusal of award reveals, Tribunal took note of
assertion by claimant in claim petition that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of auto by its
driver as well as some unknown vehicle whereas contents of
Ex.P1 - complaint filed on very day of accident alleged that
an unknown vehicle dashed against auto rickshaw from
behind causing it to go off road and fall into a ditch resulting
in death one of occupants. There was no clarity about
unknown vehicle. Even police after investigation were
unable to trace same. Tribunal noted that complaint filed
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4631
HC-KAR
was arraigning driver of auto rickshaw for accident whereas
police investigation records produced, do not indicate that a
driver of auto rickshaw was charge sheeted. Tribunal also
referred to admission in cross-examination that claimant
was unable to confirm contents of petition and examination-
in-chief affidavit to be based on her instructions. It noted,
claimant virtually disowned pleadings and deposition. She
also denied knowledge of contents of complaint given to
police.
13. Based on above, Tribunal held claimant had
failed to establish actionable negligence against driver,
owner and insurer of auto rickshaw and dismissed claim
petition.
14. Perusal of FIR with complaint, spot panchanama,
post-mortem report, hospital treatment records and ration
card reveals that complaint was filed by mother of deceased
i.e. claimant very day of accident. In complaint, it is clearly
stated that accident was caused by unknown lorry which
suddenly came to left side of road and dashing against auto
from behind. Spot panchanama drawn would corroborate
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4631
HC-KAR
accident spot and claimant's assertion. Treatment records or
ration card would not be relevant in establishing actionable
negligence against respondents.
15. Perusal of deposition of PW1 would indeed
indicate, claimant disowning contents of complaint as well as
contents of claim petition. She also candidly stated, claim
petition was filed at instance of counsel. Under such
circumstances, where party disowned pleadings, dismissal of
claim petition by Tribunal cannot be said to be contrary to
record or unjustified. Hence, no ground to interfere. Appeal
is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8
