[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mahadevi Namdev Khavare vs Nandkumar Ramchandra Banne on 26 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4723
MFA No. 102283 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101691 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102283 OF 2014 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101691 OF 2014 (MV)
IN MFA NO. 102283/2014 :
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.MAHADEVI NAMDEV KHAVARE,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. SHRI SATISH NAMDEV KAHAVARE,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. KUMARI KARISHMA NAMDEV KHAVARE,
AGE: 17 YEARS 09 MONTHS, OCC: STUDENT,
4. KUMARI KAJAL NAMDEV KHAVARE,
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
SINCE APPELLANTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
R/BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER,
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
MINOR GUARDIAN, APPELLANT NO.1.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.28 05:15:24
+0000
ALL ARE R/O: KODNI,
TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI NANDKUMAR RAMCHANDRA BANNE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MHASOBA MAL, RUI,
TQ: HATKANANGALE, DIST: KOLHAPUR.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4723
MFA No. 102283 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101691 of 2014
HC-KAR
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2014, PASSED
IN MVC.NO.669/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-II, BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC.
IN MFA NO.101691/2014 :
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD,
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580 023.
R/BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RR MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.MAHADEVI NAMDEV KHAVARE,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KODNI, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. SHRI SATISH NAMDEV KHAVARE,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KODNI, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4723
MFA No. 102283 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101691 of 2014
HC-KAR
3. KUMARI KARISHMA NAMDEV KHAVARE,
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KODNI, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.
4. KUMARI KAJAL NAMDEV KHAVARE,
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KODNI, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.
(RESPONDENT NO.4 BEING MINOR,
R/BY HER MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN
RESPONDENT NO.1)
5. SHRI NANDKUMAR RAMCHANDRA BANNE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MHASOBA MAL, RUI, TQ: HATKANANGALE,
DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.MH-09/BT-6002)
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS No.1, 2, 3, 5 : SERVED;
R4-MINOR R/BY R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
15.04.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.669/2012 ON THE FILE OF
THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-II, BELGAUM,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,24,500/- WITH
THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION & ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4723
MFA No. 102283 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101691 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 15.04.2014
passed by I Additional District Judge & MACT-II, Belagavi
('Tribunal' for short) in MVC no.669/2012, these appeals are
filed.
2. While MFA no.102283/2014 was filed by claimants
for enhancement of compensation, MFA no.101691/2014 was
by insurer challenging finding of Tribunal on liability.
3. Sri RR Mane, learned counsel for appellant-insurer
submitted, as per claimant at 04:45 p.m., on 16.10.2011,
Namdev Appa Khavare was riding motorcycle
no.MH.09/BT.6002 on NH-4 near limits of Nippani town, when
driver of a silver coloured Tata Safari, drove it in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle from behind
causing accident. In accident, Namdev died on spot due to
accidental injuries. His wife and children filed claim petition
under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for
short) against owner and insurer of motorcycle.
4. It was submitted, claim petition was opposed on
ground that accident had occurred due to sole negligence of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4723
HC-KAR
driver of Tata Safari and insurer was not liable to pay
compensation.
5. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 deposed as PW1 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P8. Respondent - insurer examined two
witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and got marked insurance policy as
Ex.R1.
6. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred
due to involvement of insured motorcycle in question and
claimants were entitled for compensation of Rs.3,24,500/- with
interest at rate of 6% per annum from owner/insurer.
Aggrieved, insurer was in appeal.
7. It was submitted claim petition was filed under
Section 163-A of MV Act. When, accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of Tata Safari vehicle by its driver and
absence of negligence on part of rider of motorcycle, claim
petition against owner/insurer of motorcycle would not be
tenable. In any case, additional premium paid for coverage of
risk of owner/rider was limited to Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore
finding of Tribunal holding insurer liable to pay entire
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4723
HC-KAR
compensation was contrary to law and sought for allowing
appeal.
8. On other hand, Sri Harish S.Maigur, learned counsel
for respondent-claimant opposed insurer's appeal and
submitted that claimants also in appeal for enhancement of
compensation. Insofar as finding of Tribunal on liability, it was
submitted Section 163-A(2) of MV Act read as follows:
"163A. Special provisions as to payment of
compensation on structured formula basis.-- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any
other law for the time being in force or instrument having
the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the
authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of
death or permanent disablement due to accident arising
out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as
indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the
victim, as the case may be.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section,
"permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and
extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of
1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section
(1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or
establish that the death or permanent disablement in
respect of which the claim has been made was due to any
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4723
HC-KAR
wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the
vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person."
9. On quantum it was submitted, this Court in its
decision in case of Smt.Shambhai Kalloli and Ors. v. Shri
Raju Kallole and Ors.,1 ('Shambai') referring to decision in
case of Ram Murti and Ors. Vs. Punjab State Electricity
Board and Ors.2 ('Ram Murti' for short) had held Motor
Vehicles Amendment Act, 2019 had introduced Section 164 by
substitution, providing for fixed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
in case of death, without proof of negligence and without
income limit as in unamended Section 163-A of MV Act.
10. It was submitted said benefit of amendment was
granted to claim petition filed in respect of accident prior to
amendment. Even Division Bench of this Court in case of
Smt.Pratima Naiker and Ors., v. Mr.Thalkin Ahamed and
Ors.3 (Smt.Pratima), extended benefit of amended Section 164
of MV Act to pre-amendment claim. On said grounds submitted
that claimants would be entitled for compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- with escalation as provided.
MFA 101930/2016 C/w MFA 101931/2016, disposed of on 27.02.2026
2023 ACJ 631
MFA 101145/2021, disposed of on 25.06.2024
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4723
HC-KAR
11. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of New
India Assurance Company Limited v. Usha Devi and Ors.4
('Usha Devi') was relied for proposition that in a claim petition
under Section 163A, proof of negligence would not be
necessary. It was submitted, decision in Usha Devi was
followed by this Court in case of Divisional Manager, New
India Assurance Co. V. Gurushiddappa Payannavar5 and
referring to decision of Apex Court in case of Ramkhiladi and
Anr. V. United India Insurance Co. and Anr.6, this Court
had held insurer would be liable to pay compensation in a claim
petition under Section 163A of MV Act.
12. In reply, learned counsel for insurer submitted, in
Usha Devi, claim petition was filed under Section 163A of MV
Act was not against insurer of an vehicle, but against insurer of
other vehicle involved in accident. Further, Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ram Murti had passed an order in facts and
circumstances of case without laying down ratio referring to a
claim petition under Section 140 of MV Act. It was submitted,
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and Ors v.
2025 INSC 836
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12026
2020 ACJ 627
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4723
HC-KAR
Bhajan Kaur and Ors.7 as well as Full Bench of this Court in
case of Guruanna Vadi and Ors. v. The General Manager,
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore,
and Ors.8, had held provisions of amended Section 140 under
MV Act would not be retrospective.
13. It was submitted, amendment which is procedural
in nature would have retrospective effect and a change in
substantive law would not be of retrospective operation without
specific stipulation in amendment. It was submitted, decisions
rendered in ignorance of larger/higher bench decisions or
contrary to statute were required to be held per-incuriam.
14. In view of above, it was submitted that
retrospective application of Section 164 would not be justified.
On said ground sought for allowing insurer's appeal and
dismissing claimants' appeal.
15. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment and award.
(2008) 12 SCC 112
2001 (5) KarLJ 322
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4723
HC-KAR
16. From above and since insurer as well as claimants
are in appeal, following points arise for consideration.
1. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding
insurer liable to pay compensation to entire
extent? and
2. Whether assessment of compensation by
Tribunal calls for modification?
17. Point no.1: Challenge by insurer on liability is
based on fact that accident in question even as per claimant
and police investigation records, was due to alleged rash and
negligent driving of an unknown Tata Safari vehicle which
dashed against motorcycle. Deceased was rider of insured
motorcycle in question. Claim petition was filed by wife and
children of rider of motorcycle against insurer of motorcycle. In
Usha Devi's case, Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a
claim under Section 163A filed against insurer of other vehicle
involved in accident which would be tenable. In instant case,
police have not been able to trace other vehicle.
18. Alternatively it is contended, Insurance Company
having collected premium covering risk of owner-cum-driver
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4723
HC-KAR
only, at best insurer would be liable to pay sum of ₹1,00,000/-
and remaining amount would require to be claimed from
insured. There can be no dispute about proposition of law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court that claimant in a claim
petition under Section 163A of MV Act, need only to establish
that accident occurred due to involvement of motor vehicle,
without need to establish actionable negligence. Pleadings as
well as police investigation records reveal that accident in
question involved insured motorcycle as well as an unknown
Tata Safari vehicle. Even if accident were to have occurred,
without involvement of unknown vehicle, claim petition under
Section 163A would be tenable against insured vehicle. But as
rightly pointed out, liability of insurer would be unlimited in
case of third party and limited to subscribed value insofar as
insured or borrower from insured is concerned, which in
present case is ₹1,00,000/-. Therefore, tribunal was not
justified in holding insurer liable to pay entire compensation.
Point no.1 is therefore answered 'partly in affirmative' as
above.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4723
HC-KAR
19. Point no.2: Insofar as assessment of
compensation, in a claim petition under Section 163A, it is held
in Usha Devi's case that assessment of compensation has to
be as per Schedule - II. But claimants by relying on decisions
in Ram Murti, Gurushiddappa, Smt.Pratima and
Smt.Shambhai contend that amendment to Motor Vehicles Act
of year 2019 introducing amendment to Section 164 would be
of retrospective effect. But as per Division Bench decision in
Smt.Pratima referring to Ram Murti's case has held amended
Section 164 to be retrospective. Same would bind this Court.
Consequently, instead of compensation determined by tribunal
at ₹3,24,500/- claimant would be entitled for ₹5,00,000/- with
escalation at 5% per annum till date i.e. for 7 years which
would be ₹6,75,000/-. Point no.2 is answered 'partly in
affirmative.
20. In view of above finding, following:
ORDER
i. Both appeals are allowed in part.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4723
HC-KAR
ii. Judgment and award dated 15.04.2014 passed
by I Addl. District Judge and MACT-II, Belgaum
in MVC no.669/2012 is modified.
iii. Claimants are held entitled for enhanced
compensation of ₹6,75,000/- as against
₹3,24,500/- awarded by tribunal. Same shall
carry interest at 6% per annum from date of
petition till deposit.
iv. However, insurer is held liable to pay
₹1,00,000/- only with interest thereon.
v. Claimants would be at liberty to recover
remaining amount from owner of motorcycle.
vi. Amount in deposit in insurer's appeal is
ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for
payment.
vii. Insurer is directed to deposit balance amount
towards its liability within six weeks.
viii. On deposit, Tribunal is directed to release
entire amount in favour of claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM/CLK,
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12
