- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:362-DB MFA No. 101224 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101224 OF 2022 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100968 OF 2020 (MV-D) IN MFA NO.101224 OF 2022: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANORANJANA W/O. ANAND KOLI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SAMBRA, TQ. BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. MISS. SONALI D/O. ANAND KOLI AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. SAMBRA, TQ. BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. MR. SAMADAN S/O. ANAND KOLI AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. SAMBRA, TQ. BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. MR. SRIRAM S/O. ANAND KOLI AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. SAMBRA, TQ. BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:362-DB MFA No. 101224 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2020 5. SHRIKRISHNA S/O. ANAND KOLI AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. SAMBRA, TQ. BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR KOTIN, ADVOCATE AND SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. AYUB SARDAR SHAIKH SINCE DECEASED R/BY HIS LR’S 1.A. MRS. SAFIA W/O. AYUB SHAIKH AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 160, RAVIVAR PETH, KARAD, TQ. KARAD, DIST. SATARA-415110. 1.B. MR. SAMEERKHAN S/O. AYUB SHAIKH AGE. MAJOR, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. 160, RAVIVAR PETH, KARAD, TQ. KARAD, DIST. SATARA-415110. (OWNER OF THE TRUCK BEARING NO.MH-11-F-4490) 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 3933/B2, MOODALAGI BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. INSURER OF TRUCK NO.MH-11-F-4490 POLICY NO.152302/31/07/00000143 VALID FROM 05/04/2007 TO 04/04/2008 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1(A) & 1(B) HELD SUFFICIENT) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:362-DB MFA No. 101224 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2020 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.2601/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO.100968 OF 2020: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 3933/B, MUDALGI ARCADE, 2ND FLOOR, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, REP. BY DULY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY, THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, KALBURGI-BHADRAPUR, INFINITY PINTO ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MANORANJANA W/O ANAND KOLI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SAMBRA, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI-591124. 2. SONALI D/O ANAND KOLI AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SAMBRA, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI-591124. 3. SAMADAN S/O ANAND KOLI AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SAMBRA, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI-591124. 4. SHRIRAM S/O ANAND KOLI AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SAMBRA, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI-591124. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:362-DB MFA No. 101224 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2020 5. SHRIKRISHNA S/O ANAND KOLI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SAMBRA, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI-591124. 6. SRI. AYUB SADAR SHAIKH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 6.A SMT. SAFIYA AYUB SHAIKH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 160, RAVIWAR PETH, KADAR, TAL: KADAR, DIST: SATARA. 6.B SHRI SAMEERKHAN AYUB SHAIKH AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 160, RAVIWAR PETH, KADAR, TAL: KADAR, DIST: SATARA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR KOTIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS. 6(A) & 6(B) HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE MVC NO.2601/2018 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BELAGAVI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.12.2019 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST & ETC., THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:362-DB MFA No. 101224 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) These appeals are as against the judgment and award dated 02.12.2019 in M.V.C. No.2601/2018 on the file of the M.A.C.T. and II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi [for short, ‘the Tribunal’]. The appeal in M.F.A. No.100968/2020 is by the Insurer, and the appeal in M.F.A. No.101224/2022 is by the Claimants. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.12,01,000/- as compensation to the claimants with 9% interest per annum. If the Claimants seek enhancement in the compensation, the Insurer called in question the Tribunal’s impugned judgment and award on the ground of maintainability of the claim petition and disputing the quantum of compensation. 2. The undisputed facts are that the deceased, Sri Anand Panduranga Koli, has met with an accident on 15.12.2007 while he was on the road between Pandharpur and Miraj, Maharashtra. His legal representatives viz., the Claimants have presented a claim petition in M.V.C. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:362-DB MFA No. 101224 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2020 No.93/2008 with the Tribunal within whose territorial jurisdiction the accident has taken place, but they have withdrawn the petition and filed their next claim petition in M.V.C. No.138/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V, Vijayapura. The claimants had arrayed not just the Insurer of the offending vehicle, [a truck in No.MH-11/F-4490] but also the owner. The aforesaid Tribunal has issued a notice of the claim petition in M.V.C. No.138/2016 to the Offending Vehicle’s owner, which is returned with the endorsement that the owner had died on 05.02.2015 [even before the date of the Claim Petition], and in fact, the notice is returned with a copy of the death certificate. 3. This Tribunal has extended opportunity to the Claimants to bring the legal representatives of the deceased offending vehicle’s owner, but with the Claimants not taking any steps, the Tribunal by its order dated 22.11.2016 has dismissed the petition on the ground of maintainability. The Tribunal’s order dated 22.11.2016 reads as under: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:362-DB MFA No. 101224 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2020 “Petitioner called out absent. No representation is made on behalf of the petitioner. Order sheet dated 01.08.2016 shows that the notice issued to the Respondent NO.1 returned un-served with copy of death certificate stating that respondent No. 1 he died on 05.02.2015 much before filing of this petition. It means that the claim petition is filed against the dead person and even after granting of the time no steps was taken to bring the L.Rs of owners of alleged offending vehicle. Under these circumstances only case against the Respondent No.2 cannot be further proceeded with. Therefore, the claim petition is dismissed as not maintainable.” 4. It is after this dismissal, the present petition in M.V.C. No.2601/2018 is presented with the Tribunal. The claimants have not applied to bring on record the Legal Representatives of the deceased Offending Vehicle’s owner in M.V.C. No.138/2016. The Insurer has questioned the maintainability of the petition in M.V.C. No.2601/2018 after the afore dismissal of the claim petition in M.V.C. No.138/2016. The Tribunal has framed an Issue on the maintainability of the petition, and the Tribunal has opined that the claim petition is maintainable in view of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:362-DB MFA No. 101224 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2020 decision of the Apex Court in Malati Sardar vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others1 and granted compensation as aforesaid to the Claimants. 5. Sri. M.K. Soudagar, the learned counsel for the Insurer, submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider the Insurer’s objection as regards the maintainability of the petition after the dismissal of the earlier petition in M.V.C. No.138/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T.-V, Vijayapura. The learned counsel submits that the claimants, if they could pursue their claim for compensation, should have filed appropriate applications to bring the legal representatives of the owner on record in the claim petition in M.V.C. No.138/2016 showing sufficient cause for not arraying the legal representatives as respondents at the first instance and showing why they should not be permitted to bring such legal heirs on record. 6. Sri. M.K. Soudagar emphasizes that if the claimants are permitted to prosecute the claim petition in 1 (2016) 3 SCC 43 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:362-DB MFA No. 101224 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2020 M.V.C. No.2601/2018, it tantamount to presenting multiple claim petitions which will not be permissible in law. Sri. Vijaykumar Kotin, the learned counsel for the claimants, is heard in the light of this objection, and the learned counsel pleads Claimants’ bona fides in presenting the third claim petition in M.V.C. No.2601/2018, but he cannot refute the submissions on behalf of the Insurer. 7. This Court must observe that the Tribunal, though has referred to the first petition in M.V.C. No.93/2008 and the next petition in M.V.C. No.138/2016, has examined the question of maintainability of the third claim petition in M.V.C. No.2601/2018 only referring to the first petition in M.V.C. No.93/2008. The Tribunal, without examining the import of the dismissal of the petition in M.V.C. No.138/2016, has opined that though the accident is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal with whom the first claim petition [M.V.C. No.93/2008] is filed, the second petition would be maintainable because that petition is not decided on merits and the claimants cannot be constrained - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:362-DB MFA No. 101224 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2020 to present a petition only before the jurisdictional Tribunal in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Malati Sardar. As observed earlier, the Tribunal has not considered the consequence of the dismissal of the second claim petition in M.V.C. No.138/2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V, Vijayapura and the consequences that would be because of the dismissal on the ground that the legal representatives of the owner are not brought on record. The Tribunal’s award therefore is irregular and cannot be sustained. 8. This Court must next examine whether the dismissal of the claim petition in M.V.C. No.138/2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V, Vijayapura would impede the present petition in M.V.C. No.2601/2018. This Court is of the considered view that the salient that is incorporated in the relevant provisions of CPC must prevail. If a claim is abandoned, the next petition should be barred. This Court must allude to the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1[4] of CPC thereof. These provisions incorporate the salient that the same cause must not be prosecuted in multiple - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:362-DB MFA No. 101224 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2020 forums defeating the principal of finality. If the claimants are now permitted to prosecute the present claim petition, complaint, this salient will be violated. Therefore, this Court must interfere with the Tribunal’s impugned judgment and award. The next question for consideration would be whether this must bring about a closure of the claim by the claimants. 9. The cause that is contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act is to ensure that those who suffer loss of dependency [and other losses] because of the negligence of the other in a road accident must be compensated. The claimants have, as asserted by their learned counsel, are bona fide prosecuting the claim. The claimants therefore must be at liberty to apply in the petition in M.V.C. No.138/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T.-V, Vijayapura and seek exemption of the time prosecuting the claim petition and the present appeals. If the claimants indeed avail this remedy and file applications, the aforesaid Tribunal must endeavour to dispose of the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:362-DB MFA No. 101224 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2020 applications expeditiously. Further, the Tribunal, if it is of the opinion that the claimants are not bona fide in prosecuting the present proceedings [including the claim petition in M.V.C. No.2601/2018], cannot permit any interest to the Claimants for the period between the dismissal of the claim petition in M.V.C. No.138/2019 and the date of the application that could be filed in terms of the liberty now reserved. Hence, the following: ORDER [A] The appeal by the insurer in M.F.A. No.100968/2020 is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 02.12.2019 passed by the M.A.C.T. and II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in M.V.C. No.2601/2018. Consequentially, the Claimants’ appeal in M.F.A. No.101224/2022 stands disposed of subject to the observations as aforesaid. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:362-DB MFA No. 101224 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2020 [B] The Registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal for reimbursement to the Insurer, and the office is also directed to transmit the TCR expeditiously. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30