- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14023 MFA No. 1556 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1556 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: SMT. PREMA W/O. BASAVARAJAPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST & COOLIE (AT PRESENT NO WORK), R/O BEERAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT. … APPELLANT (BY SRI N.K. SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. R. SHIVAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DRIVER OF TRACTOR NO.KA 17-TH 7506, R/O. NELAHONNE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK-577217, DAVANGERE DISTRICT. 2. RAMAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS OWNER OF TRACTOR NO.KA 17-TH 7506, R/O NELAHONNE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK-577217, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., GUNDI CHOULTRY ROAD, DAVANGERE CITY REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3, R-1 & R-2 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14023 MFA No. 1556 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.932/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., HARIHAR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This is an appeal by the claimant against the dismissal of the claim for compensation arising out of a road traffic accident. 2. On 29.08.2008 while the claimant was sitting near a canal between Beeragondanahalli village and Hirebasur village in Honnali taluk, a Tractor bearing No.KA 17 TH 7506, driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 dashed against her, causing serious injuries. Claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the injuries sustained. 3. The trial Court dismissed the claim petition, an appeal was preferred by the claimants in MFA No.6023/2012 before this Court. In the appeal the findings on issue Nos.1 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14023 MFA No. 1556 of 2014 and 4 which pertain to the involvement of the tractor in the accident were decided against the claimant holding that the vehicle was not involved. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the tribunal for recording findings on issue Nos.2, 3 and 5. The findings recorded by the tribunal on issue Nos.1 and 4 decided against the claimant were not disturbed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant - claimant submits that the tribunal has erred in holding that the tractor was not involved in the accident, leading to the dismissal of the claim. It is argued that there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence including the eyewitness testimony PW4 and medical records, establishing the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1, driver of Tractor bearing No.KA 17 TH 7506. It is argued that even though the matter was remanded for reconsideration of issue Nos.2, 3 and 5, the compensation should not be denied merely because issue Nos.1 and 4 were decided against the appellant. Counsel for the appellant submits that irrespective of the technical findings the fact - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14023 MFA No. 1556 of 2014 remains that the claimant sustained grievous injury in a road traffic accident and is entitled for compensation. 5. Smt. H R Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company submits that this Court has already held that the Tractor bearing No.KA 17 TH 7506 was not involved in the accident and this finding has attained finality, no liability can be fastened on the insurer. It is submitted that the claim itself is fraudulent as the vehicle in question was never involved in the accident, the insurer’s liability arises only if the insured risk occurs. Since this Court in MFA No.6023/2012 has ruled out the vehicle involvement, the insurance company has no contractual obligation to pay the compensation. It is argued that the claimant is attempting to reopen the settled issue under the grab of deciding issue Nos.2, 3 and 5, which cannot be entertained since the core finding on non-involvement of the vehicle has attained finality. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the question that falls for consideration is, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14023 MFA No. 1556 of 2014 “Whether the appellant can claim compensation despite the finality of the findings on issue Nos.1 and 4 that the tractor bearing No.KA 17 TH 7506 was not involved in the accident ?” 7. The appellant seeks for compensation for the injuries caused in the accident on 29.08.2008 by the driver of the tractor bearing No.KA 17 TH 7506. The trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Does the petitioner proves that on 29.8.2008 at about 11.30 a.m. she proceeded to canal to get the clothes washed which is located in between Beeragondanahalli and Hirebasur village, she was waiting by the side of canal, at that time respondent No.1 drove his tractor bearing reg. No.KA 17 TA- 7506 came from Hirebasur side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner, and thereby committed the accident? 2. Does the petitioner proves his occupation, income and age at the time of accident and nature of injuries as suffered by him? 3. Does the respondent No.3 proves that the driver of tractor bearing reg. No. KA 17 ΤΗ 7506 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14023 MFA No. 1556 of 2014 had no valid and effective driving license on the date of accident? 4. Does the respondent No.3 proves that the vehicle bearing reg. No. KA 17 TH 7506 is not involved in the accident and the petitioner has created the documents for the purpose of compensation? 5. Does the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so from whom and for what amount? 6. What order or Award?” 8. Issue No.1 is regarding whether the driver of the tractor acted in a rash and negligent manner, causing the accident, while Issue No 4 addressed whether the insurance company proved that the Tractor was not involved in the accident. The Tribunal answered Issue No.1 negatively (against the claimant) and Issue No.4 affirmatively (in favour of the insurance company) concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove the Tractor’s involvement, and dismissed the claim. The appellant appealed to this Court in MFA No.6023/2012. This Court remanded the matter to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14023 MFA No. 1556 of 2014 reconsider Issues 2, 3 and 5 which pertains to the nature of the injuries sustained and the validity of the tractor driver’s license. However, the Court confirmed that Issues 1 and 4 which concluded that the tractor (KA-17-TH-7506) was not involved in the accident are final and undisturbed. As these findings have attained finality, the insurer cannot be held liable. Consequently, the appellant is not entitled to compensation, and remand proceedings do not reckon Issue Nos.1 and 4. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following - ORDER The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2