- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2931 MFA No. 200613 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200613 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ S/O: SAIBANNA KANKI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR REG. NO.KA-32/T-8237/6223, R/O: NELOGI, TQ: JEWARGI, DIST: KALABURAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVARAJ S/O: KARABASAPPA GUDAGI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: N.E.K.R.T.C. DRIVER, R/O: NAGUR VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST: KALABURAGI. P.NO.4351, DEPOT NO.3, KALABURAGI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, N.E.K.R.T.C., DIVISION KALABURAGI, OPP:KBN HOSPITAL, KALABURAGI – 585 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RATNA N.SHIVAYOGIMATH, 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:2931 MFA No. 200613 of 2021 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE MISC. FIRST APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.09.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER M.A.C.T., AT KALABURAGI IN M.V.C.NO.1267/2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A., IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIST 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 10.09.2018 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT, Kalaburagi (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC No.1267/2015, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by unsuccessful claimant in claim for damages to vehicle. It was submitted in an accident that occurred on 17.02.2015 at about 8.15 p.m., Tractor bearing registration no.KA-32/T-8237 and Trolley bearing registration no.KA-32/T-6223, belonging to claimant was being driven by its driver on Gulbarga-Humnabad road, when driver of NEKRTC bus bearing registration no.KA-28/F-1695, drove it in a rash - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2931 MFA No. 200613 of 2021 and negligent manner and dashed against tractor and trolley causing accident. In said accident, driver was injured and tractor/trolley sustained damages. Therefore, claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, for damages by claimant/owner of tractor-trolley. 3. After appearance, driver of NEKRTC bus and NEKRTC filed objections denying negligence for causing accident and alleging accident occurred due to sole negligence of driver tractor and trolley. It was contended driver of tractor and trolley did not have valid and effective driving licence as on date of accident. It was also contended that insurer of claimant’s vehicle would be necessary party. 4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. Respondent examined one witness as RW.1 and no documentary evidence was produced. 5. On consideration, Tribunal held claimant had failed to establish accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus by its driver and dismissed claim petition. Dissatisfied by same, claimant was in appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2931 MFA No. 200613 of 2021 6. It was contended that tractor-trolley in question were only two years old and due to accident, tractor-trolley had sustained substantial damages. Though police had conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against drivers of both vehicles, claimant would be entitled for compensation to extent of apportionment of negligence against driver of NEKRTC bus. It was further submitted that claimant had not filed any application for compensation with its insurer and therefore dismissal of would be unjustified. On above grounds, sought for allowing appeal. 7. On other hand, Smt.Ratna Shivayogimath, learned counsel for respondent no.2-insurer sought to support award and oppose appeal. It was firstly submitted that driver of tractor-trolley did not hold valid and effective driving licence at time of accident. It was secondly submitted that accident occurred in middle of road and was head on collision. There was absolutely no justification for driver of tractor-trolley to have driven it in middle of road. Therefore, accident was due to sole negligence of driver of tractor-trolley. It was submitted since claimant admitted to have filed claim application with its insurer, without disclosing amount of compensation received - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2931 MFA No. 200613 of 2021 from his insurer, claim petition would not be tenable. On said grounds, sought for dismissal. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award. 9. From above, points that would arise for consideration are: (a) Whether dismissal of claim petition by Tribunal was justified? (b) Whether claimant is entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for? 10. In support of claim petition, claimant relied on FIR, complaint, charge sheet, spot panchanama, motor vehicle inspector’s report marked as Exs.P1 to P5 to substantiate accident. He also produced RC book of Tractor to establish ownership. As observed by Tribunal, prosecution records would hold negligence against drivers of both vehicles. Therefore, to extent of negligence of driver of tractor, owner would not be entitled for compensation. During cross-examination claimant admitted that tractor was insured and claim application was filed. If, it is so, then it was incumbent upon claimant to have disclosed quantum of compensation he had secured from his - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2931 MFA No. 200613 of 2021 insurer. Only if it was less than damages sustained, claim petition could be maintained against other tort-feasor-NEKRTC that too to extent of 50%. In instant case, claimant had admitted to have filed claim but not come out true to Tribunal by disclosing amount awarded. Same is one of reason cited by Tribunal for dismissal. Even before this Court, there is no effort by claimant to disclose said information. Therefore, claim petition would not be bonafide. Hence, I do not see any justification for allowing appeal. 11. Point (a) is answered in affirmative and Point (b) is in negative. Consequently following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 Ct;Vk