- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871 MFA No. 20532 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20532 OF 2013 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. J. BASAVARAJA S/O. LATE PAMPANNA, AGE: 61 YEARS 2. KODI BASAVARAJ, S/O. J.BASAVARAJ, AGE: 36 YEARS, 3. SHIVARAJ, S/O. J.BASAVARAJ, AGE: 34 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O. HIREHAGADAL VILLAGE TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. BALLARI. …APPELLANTS (BY KUM. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADV FOR SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV) AND: 1. M. BASAVARAJ S/O. M. KRISHNAMURTHY AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF HEROHONDA MOTOR BIKE BEARING REG.NO.KA-35/R-4611, R/O.D.NO.15/220, OLD MEDAR ROAD, HOSPET. 2. THE MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, SEETHARAM COMPLEX, OPPOSITE COSMOPOLITAN CLUB, DOUBLE ROAD, BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04-05-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.237/2010 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM MEMBER, MACT-VI, KUDLIGI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.17 15:46:05 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871 MFA No. 20532 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the petitioners challenging the judgment and award dated 04.05.2012 passed in MVC No.237/2010 by the learned Civil Judge cum Member MACT-VI, Kudligi. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. Respondent No.1 was the rider of the motor-cycle bearing registration No.KA-35/R-4611, respondent No.2 is the owner of the said motor-cycle and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the said motor-cycle. On 06.02.2009 at about 8.00 p.m, the accident occurred on Kudligi Hospet by-pass road. In the said accident, Smt. Lakshmikanthamma sustained grievous - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871 MFA No. 20532 of 2013 injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners being the legal representatives of the deceased Lakshmikanthamma filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V Act, seeking for compensation on account of death of Smt. Lakshmikanthamma in the road traffic accident. 4. The Tribunal issued notice to the respondents. The respondents appeared through the counsel. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 though appeared but did not choose to file a statement of objections. 5. Respondent No.3- The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the rider of the motor-cycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871 MFA No. 20532 of 2013 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.3 was examined as PW.1 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. In rebuttal, the officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW.1 and marked 5 documents as Exs.R1 to R5. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the realization of the amount and held the owner of the motorcycle in question. The claim petition against the Insurance Company was dismissed and it directed the owner of the motor-cycle in question to deposit the compensation amount. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871 MFA No. 20532 of 2013 9. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and also the dismissal of the claim petition against the Insurance Company, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have proved that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor-cycle in question and produced the charge sheet, marked as Ex.P2. The Tribunal has recorded in its finding that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor-cycle and dismissed the claim petition against the Insurance Company without assigning any reasons. She submits that as of the date of accident, the insurance policy was valid. The Insurance - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871 MFA No. 20532 of 2013 Company is liable to indemnify the owner by paying compensation to the petitioners. She submits that the appeal may be allowed and matter be remitted to the Tribunal to give findings on the liability. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment. He admits that though the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company, but there is breach of policy condition. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the dismissal of the claim petition against the Insurance Company. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871 MFA No. 20532 of 2013 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and death of the deceased Smt. Lakshmikanthamma in the road traffic accident. To prove that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle, the petitioner has produced the charge sheet marked, as Ex.P2. The Insurance Company has taken a specific defense in the statement of objections that the rider of the motor-cycle was not having a valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident. The Insurance Company examined its officer as RW.1. 16. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company. When the Tribunal has answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, the Tribunal should have assigned reasons for dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company. Hence, The Tribunal committed an error in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871 MFA No. 20532 of 2013 dismissing the claim petition without assigning any reasons. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 04.05.2012 passed in MVC No.237/2010 by the learned Civil Judge cum Member MACT-VI, Kudligi, is hereby set aside. iii. The claim petition in MVC No.237/2010 is restored to its original file. iv. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the claim petition after assigning the appropriate reasons. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11871 MFA No. 20532 of 2013 v. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.10.2025 without awaiting further notice. vi. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. vii. The office is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1