- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309 MFA No. 203911 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 203504 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.203911 OF 2023 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.203504 OF 2023 IN M.F.A.NO.203911 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. MD. MANSOOR S/O SHAIK CHAND SAB, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, 2. KHAIRUNNISSA BEGUM W/O MD. MANSOOR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, BOTH ARE R/O: NOORKHAN TALEEM, TQ AND DIST: BIDAR – 585 402. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARAN S/O SURESH SHINDE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H NO.149, GADAWANTHI, TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR – 585 401. (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE HERO SPLENDOR PLUS BEARING REGISTERED NO.KA.39/ S. 7479) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309 MFA No. 203911 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 203504 of 2023 2. THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM, M/S GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR KALABURAGI, SQUARE DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI – 580 021. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. 3. HEMANTH JADAV S/O DATTAJI JADAV, AGED: 55 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED ARMY EMPLOYEE, R/O: LAXMI NAGAR, BALEKUDRI KHB COLONY, BELGAUM – 590 002. (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE HERO HONDA SPLENDOR BEARING NO. KA49/ H.9381.) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.06.2023 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND ADDL. MACT., BIDAR IN MVC NO. 385/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN M.F.A.NO.203504 OF 2023 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, The CHOLAMANDALAM M/S GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, 1st FLOOR, KALABURAGI, SQUARE DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309 MFA No. 203911 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 203504 of 2023 AND: 1. MD. MANSOOR S/O SHAIK CHAND SAB, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, 2. KHAIRUNNISSA BEGUM S/O SHAIK CHAND SAB, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, BOTH ARE R/O: NOORKHAN TALEEM, TQ AND DIST: BIDAR – 585 402. 3. KARAN S/O SURESH SHINDE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H NO.149, GADAWANTHI, TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR – 585 401. 4. HEMANTH JADAV S/O DATTAJI JADAV, AGED: MAJOR, OCC: RETIRED ARMY EMPLOYEE, R/O: LAXMI NAGAR, BALEKUDRI KHB COLONY, BELGAUM – 590 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND 2; SRI SANTOSH KUMAR B. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.06.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND ADDL. MACT, AT BIDAR IN M.V.C.NO.385/2022, AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISCHARGE ITS LIABILITY TO PAY THE COMPENSATION AND PLEASE TO REDUCE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309 MFA No. 203911 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 203504 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard and with consent of both parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Challenging judgment and award dated 17.06.2023 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Addl. MACT, at Bidar in M.V.C.no.385/2022, these appeals are filed. 3. MFA no.203504/2023 is filed by insurer being aggrieved by finding of tribunal on liability and quantum only insofar as award of interest of 9% p.a. is concerned, while claimants have filed MFA no.203911/2023 challenging apportionment of negligence. 4. Sri Manjunath Mallayya Shetty, learned counsel for insurer, submits, as per claimant, on 19.01.2022, when Md.Ruman was riding motorcycle bearing no.KA-49/H-9381, near BSNL office, Jalsangvi, rider of another motorcycle bearing no.KA-39/S-7479, rode it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against Md.Ruman’s motorcycle, causing accident. In said accident, Md.Ruman sustained fatal injuries and died on spot. Alleging loss of dependency, his parents filed MVC - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309 MFA No. 203911 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 203504 of 2023 no.385/2022 against owner and insurer of offending motorcycle. 5. On contest wherein, insurer disputed claim petition averments, alleged violation of policy conditions and urged contributory negligence against Md.Ruman, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-6. Insurer examined its official as RW-1, but led no documentary evidence. 6. On consideration, tribunal answered issues no.1 and 3 in affirmative, issues no.2, 4 and 5 partly in affirmative and issue no.6 by allowing claim petition. Tribunal held claimants entitled for net compensation of Rs.6,81,200/- with 9% interest per annum. 7. It was submitted, while passing impugned award, tribunal failed to note that Md.Ruman – victim himself did not have valid driving license. Moreover, he was riding motorcycle with two pillion riders. Therefore, apportionment of contributory negligence against him would have to be scaled up. At same time, rider of insured motorcycle also did not have any driving - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309 MFA No. 203911 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 203504 of 2023 license. Therefore, tribunal was not justified in holding insurer liable. It was alternatively submitted, award of interest at 9% was higher and sought reduction. 8. On other hand, Sri Basavaraj R Math, learned counsel for claimants, opposed insurer’s appeal and pressed claimant’s appeal against apportionment of negligence. It was submitted, tribunal was not justified in holding deceased negligent to extent of 60% and denying compensation to said extent. It was submitted, accident was head on collision in middle of road between two motorcycles. Therefore, at worst, apportionment should have been 50% each. It was further submitted, since it was case of contributory negligence by riders of both motorcycles, insurer could not escape liability in case of third party and would at best confine itself to seeking for an order of pay and recover relying on judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Shamanna and Another v. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors1 and Smt.M.Ananthi and Ors. v. P. Venkatesan and Others2. 1 (2018) 9 SCC 650 2 In Civil Appeal no.1175 of 2025 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309 MFA No. 203911 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 203504 of 2023 9. Heard counsel and perused impugned judgment and award. 10. From above, since claimants and insurer are challenging findings of tribunal on liability and award of higher rate of interest, points that would arise for consideration are: “i) Whether finding of tribunal on liability requires modification? ii) Whether tribunal was justified in awarding 9% interest per annum?” Point no.1: 11. Insofar as negligence, claimants relied on police investigation records which chargesheeted riders of both motorcycles for rash and negligent riding and causing accident. Admittedly, accident was head on collision wherein both riders were with two pillion riders each. Circumstances and material against both riders being equal, tribunal would not be justified in holding deceased negligent to extent of 60%. It has to be held equally at 50%. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309 MFA No. 203911 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 203504 of 2023 12. Insofar as liability, appellant-insurer herein is insurer of other motorcycle and deceased would be third party vis-à-vis contract of insurance in question. Therefore, it would require to be held liable to extent of 50% as per ratio of apportionment of negligence. However, as its insured violated conditions of policy by permitting rider without driving licence to ride insured vehicle, it would be required to pay compensation to claimants in first instance and thereafter, recover same from insured. Point no.1 is answered partly in affirmative as above. Point no.2: 13. This Court in case of Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Rajasthan vs. Smt.Laxmi and others3, held that rate of interest in a motor accident claims cannot be more than 6% in view of Section 30 of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, insurer would be liable to pay interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till date of payment. 3 2018 (4) AKR 808 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309 MFA No. 203911 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 203504 of 2023 14. Point no.2 is thus answered in negative. Consequently, following: ORDER Both claimants’ and insurer’s appeals are allowed in part. Judgment and award dated 17.06.2023 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Additional MACT, Bidar, in MVC no.385/2022 is modified, claimants are held entitled for 50% of total compensation of Rs.17,03,000/- i.e., Rs.8,51,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit. Insurer is held liable to pay same to claimants in first instance and thereafter, recover it from insured without need for separate proceedings. Insurer directed to deposit above amount within six weeks. On deposit, conditions imposed by tribunal for release/fixed deposit shall apply to above compensation proportionately. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NJ/NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49/Ct: VK