- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987 MFA No. 201803 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201803 OF 2019 (MV-INJ) BETWEEN: SRIKRISHNA S/O CHANBASAPPA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCCU: AGRI., R/O: VILLAGE SITALGERA, TQ: HUMNABAD, NOW R/O: AT SHARAN NAGAR, BIDAR – 585 401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOHAMMED HANEEF S/O ISMAIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCCU: BUSINESS, R/O: HALLIKHED-B, TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR – 585 414. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PRASHANT HOUSE, H.NO.22-441, BEHIND SYNDICATE BANK, HUMNABAD – 585 330. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987 MFA No. 201803 of 2019 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.06.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., AT BIDAR IN M.V.C.NO.512/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 29.06.2018 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bidar in MVC no.512/2014, appeal is filed. 2. Sri Basavaraj R Math, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by claimant challenging finding of Tribunal apportioning negligence against claimant to extent of 50% as well as seeking for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, on 10.05.2014 when claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-39/J-4384 from Sitalgera towards Markhal on proper side of road, at about 9.15 a.m., rider of motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-39/H- 5425, in process of overtaking another motorcycle in rash and negligent manner dashed against claimant’s motorcycle causing - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987 MFA No. 201803 of 2019 accident. Due to said accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to hospital for treatment. Despite taking treatment, spending money, he did not recover fully and sustained permanent disability/loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, against owner and insurer of offending motorcycle. 3. Despite service, owner did not appear. He was placed ex-parte. Insurer filed objections denying claim petition averments in toto and alleging violation of conditions of insurance policy by insured and denying liability to pay compensation. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following issues: “ISSUES 1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 10-05-2014 at about 09-15 a.m. when the petitioner was proceeding on his Motor Cycle bearing registration No. KA39/J4384 near the land of Sanju Kheni on Sitalgera Markhal road, due to the sole rash & negligence of the rider of Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing registration No. KA39/H5425 the accident occurred and he sustained grievous injuries? 2. Whether the respondent No.2 proves the first respondent violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4. What Order or Award?” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987 MFA No. 201803 of 2019 4. Thereafter, claimant examined himself, eye witness and Dr.Vijayakumar Bulgundi as PWs-1 to 3. Exhibits P-1 to P- 54 got marked. Respondent no.2 did not lead any evidence. 5. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 partly in affirmative, issue no.2 in negative, issues no.3 and 4 by allowing claim petition and holding owner and insurer liable to pay Rs.1,84,440/- (i.e. ½ of Rs.3,68,880/-) with interest 6% p.a. to claimant. 6. It was submitted, Tribunal erred in holding claimant negligent to extent of 50% in causing accident, merely on ground that motor vehicle inspector’s report indicated accident between two motorcycle was head on collision. Said finding was contrary to material on record namely, specific assertion as well as deposition by PW-1 that claimant was riding his motorcycle on proper side of road and that rider of other motorcycle had come on wrong side and dashed against claimant’s motorcycle. It was further submitted damages to petrol tank of claimant’s motorcycle on its left side as well as damage to brake paddle as noted by motor vehicles inspector - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987 MFA No. 201803 of 2019 sufficiently indicated that accident was due to sole negligence of rider of insured motorcycle. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that compensation assessed by Tribunal under various heads was inadequate and sought enhancement. 8. Sri Rahul R. Asture, learned counsel for respondent- insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted even as per claimant as well as police investigation records, accident in question was due to head on collision between claimant’s motorcycle and insured. Though, claimant had sought to establish that accident was due to sole negligence of insured vehicle by examining eye witness as PW-2, insurer had elicited admission that PW-2 had not witnessed accident. It was submitted, PW-2 was in fact brother of claimant, who had failed to support him. Tribunal had rightly taken note of same and held that accident was due to negligence of riders of both motorcycles. 9. In reply, learned counsel for claimant submitted that Ex.P-53 and 54 namely certified copy of order sheet and judgment in CC No.487/2014 indicated that rider of insured motorcycle had pleaded guilty to offences under Sections 279, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987 MFA No. 201803 of 2019 337 and 338 of IPC. On other hand, claimant was acquitted. Therefore, Tribunal was not justified in heaping 50% negligence on claimant. 10. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and records. 11. From above, since, claimant is in appeal, challenging finding of Tribunal on negligence as well as quantum, points that arise for consideration are: “i) Whether finding of Tribunal apportioning of liability to extent of 50% on claimant is contrary to law? ii) Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?” 12. While passing impugned judgment and award, Tribunal referred to prosecution records namely FIR, complaint, charge sheet, spot Panchanama and MVI report marked as Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-5 to P-7, wherein riders of both motorcycles were alleged to have been rash and negligent. On perusing Exhibits P-53 and 54 it noted that rider of insured - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987 MFA No. 201803 of 2019 motorcycle had pleaded guilty, whereas claimant was acquitted. It however observed acquittal in criminal case was not conclusive proof of innocence of claimant. Referring to deposition of PW-2, that he did not witness accident and spot panchanama did not indicate width of road or accident spot, but, Ex.P-7 (MVI report) showed damage to both motorcycles on their front sides and held them to have contributed 50% negligence each in causing accident. 13. However, Tribunal ignored that pleading guilty to offence of causing accident due to rash and negligent driving would bind Tribunal, it would not be so in case of acquittal. Claimant would require to lead specific evidence to establish that accident was not due to his rash and negligent riding. 14. In instant case, claimant has specifically pleaded that he was riding his motorcycle on left side of road in moderate speed, when rider of insured motorcycle rode it in rash and negligent and zigzag manner, came on wrong side and dashed against claimant’s motorcycle. Even in his deposition, he reiterated same facts. Though, he was cross examined at length by insurer, there was not even a single - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987 MFA No. 201803 of 2019 suggestion that accident occurred in middle of road and was not due to insured vehicle proceeding on wrong side. Besides above, it is seen, there is unexplained damage on left side of fuel tank in addition to damage sustained on right side of claimant’s motorcycle. Thus, finding of Tribunal apportioning negligence to extent of 50% against riders of both motorcycles would be contrary to record. Hence, point no.1 is answered in affirmative. 15. In accident, claimant sustained displaced fracture of femur assessed by PW-3 to have resulted in partial permanent disability of 22%. Tribunal considered age of claimant as 55 years, assessed his monthly income at Rs.8,000/-, loss of earning capacity at 22% to award Rs.1,90,080/- towards loss of future income, Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.54,800/- towards medical expenses, Rs.48,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period, Rs.6,000/- towards attendance, Rs.5,000/- towards food and nourishment and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities i.e. Rs.3,68,880/- in total as compensation. On bare examination, same cannot be held to be grossly inadequate. On other hand, compensation - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2987 MFA No. 201803 of 2019 awarded appears just and proper. Therefore, point no.2 is answered in negative. Consequently, following: ORDER a) Appeal is allowed in part. b) Judgment and award dated 29.06.2018 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bidar in MVC no.512/2014 is modified, insurer is held liable to pay entire compensation as assessed by Tribunal. c) Insurer is directed to deposit same before Tribunal with interest, except for period of 329 days being delay in filing appeal. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47