- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9281 MFA No. 22389 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22389 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO, LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI, NOW REP BY S.M DHARMANANDRAO ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI. BASAVANNI SHANKAR MOHITE AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: STONE CUTTER AND VEGETABLE VENDOR NOW NIL, R/O: MUGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST. BELGAUM. 2. SHRI. YUVARAJ GANAPATI SHITOLE AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: ANKALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST. BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01-03-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.991/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III AND MEMBER ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,13,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Date: 2025.08.11 16:06:06 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9281 MFA No. 22389 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the insurance company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 01.03.2013 passed in MVC No.991/2012 by the learned Presiding Officer Fast Track Court-III and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. The appellant was respondent No.2, respondent No.1 was the petitioner/claimant and respondent No.2 was respondent No.1. 3. Brief facts of the case leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The claimant was travelling with the vegetables along with other goods in an auto bearing registration No.KA-23-A- 2222 from Sankeshwar to his native village on 06.01.2012 and the driver of the goods auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, it turtled and caused - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9281 MFA No. 22389 of 2013 accident near Amminabhavi cross on Chikkodi-Belgaum road. Due to the impact, respondent No.1 and others suffered grievous injuries and were shifted to Government General Hospital at Sankeshwar and thereafter shifted to Hattaraki hospital and Trauma Center Gadahinglaj for higher treatment. It is contended that the claimant was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was doing stone cutting and earning Rs.6,000/ per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the claimant is not in a position to work as prior to the accident and the said injury has resulted in permanent disability. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on the account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prayed to allow the claim petition. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed exparte. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9281 MFA No. 22389 of 2013 5. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and it is contended that the driver of the goods auto was not holding a valid and effective driving license and it is contended that, as respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, it is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues. 7. The claimant to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined 4 witnesses as PWs.2 to 5 and marked 31 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-31. 8. Respondent No.2 did not lead any evidence, but marked 2 documents as Exs.R-1 and R-2. 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs and ordered that the claimant is entitled for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9281 MFA No. 22389 of 2013 compensation of Rs.1,31,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realization and further ordered that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation with accrued interest within 30 days from the date of the award as contemplated under Section 168(3) of the MV Act. 10. Respondent No.2, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, has filed this miscellaneous first appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-respondent No.2. Though notice is issued to the claimant and respondent No.1 herein, have remained unrepresented. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and exorbitant. He submits that the claimant was traveling as a gratuitous passenger. Hence, the policy does not cover the said passengers. He submits that the Tribunal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9281 MFA No. 22389 of 2013 without considering the said aspect, has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on respondent No.2. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 13. Perused the records, considered the submissions of the learned counsel for 2nd respondent. 14. There is no dispute regarding the accident having occurred on 06.01.2012 and the claimant having traveled in the goods auto along with the vegetables. The driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the claimant and others suffered grievous injuries and they were shifted to the Government General Hospital, Sankeshwar and thereafter shifted to a private hospital for further treatment. 15. To prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimant produced a copy of the charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-6. Other injured persons have also filed the claim petitions in MVC Nos.992/2012 and 994/2012. The Tribunal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9281 MFA No. 22389 of 2013 clubbed all the 3 claim petitions and common issues were framed. The claimant in each of the claim petitions were examined and also produced records to show that they have suffered the permanent disability. The claimant has produced wound certificate marked as Ex.P-4 and disability certificate Ex.P-13. The Tribunal considering the injuries suffered by the claimant and also considering the evidence of PW.5-the Doctor, who has examined the claimant and issued disability certificate which is marked as Ex.P-17, has opined that the claimant has suffered physical disability amounting to 6% of the whole body. 16. The defence of 2nd respondent is that the claimant is a gratuitous passenger and respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation, as insurance policy does not cover the gratuitous passenger. Therefore, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there is violation of the policy conditions. The official of respondent No.2 has not entered witness box to rebut the evidence lead by the claimant. The 2nd respondent have produced two documents marked as Exs.R1 and R2 the insurance policies. Accept the defence of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9281 MFA No. 22389 of 2013 Respondent No.2, it has not produced any record to show that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger. Further, out of the same accident, the claim petitions filed by the other claimants, who have sustained injuries in MVC No.992/2012 and 994/2012 were allowed and the award were passed in the aforesaid cases. The judgments passed in the above referred cases have attained finality. 17. It is submitted by the petitioner, that insurance company has implemented the award passed in the aforesaid cases. As respondent No.2 has implemented the award passed in the aforesaid cases, there is no impediment in implementing the impugned judgment. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. 18. Accordingly, I pass the following order. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9281 MFA No. 22389 of 2013 The appeal is dismissed. No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT:BSB