- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB MFA No. 101905 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL M.F.A. NO. 101905 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, R. M. JOSHI BUILDING, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020, NOW R/BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHABANA D/O. MAHUBUBSAB DHARWAD, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BIRABAND ONI, NEAR MASQUE, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024. 2. MR. SUBHAS S/O. LAGAMAPPA PADALLI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. A/P. NAGANUR, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591224. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANJANEYA M., ADV. FOR R1; SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.02.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HUBBALLI, IN M.V.C. NO.622/2022 WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB MFA No. 101905 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This appeal is filed by the appellant - Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 08.02.2024 passed in MVC No.622/2022 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hubballi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 27.07.2022, the deceased-Fairuj Khan was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-63-J-7416, while he was proceeding from the Biraband Oni, Old Hubballi to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi, at that time, a Tipper vehicle bearing registration No.KA-35-B- 7331, driven by its driver from Galidurgamma Temple towards KIMS Hubballi, in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking other vehicle, dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the impact of the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the claimants have suffered - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB MFA No. 101905 of 2024 both emotional and financial dependency. Hence, they filed claim petition seeking compensation. 3. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2 - Insurance Company contested the proceedings by filing separate written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.2 denied the nature of accident, avocation and income of the deceased and contended that due to the negligent riding of the deceased, who is the rider of the motorcycle, the accident in question had occurred and at the time of accident he was not possessing valid and effective driving license to ride the vehicle. It is also contended that just to get compensation, the claimants have falsely filed the claim petition. Hence, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation as the deceased rider himself was responsible for the accident. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The claimant No.2 examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P12. The respondent did not examine any witnesses, but with the consent they got marked Ex.R1. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB MFA No. 101905 of 2024 5. The Tribunal on scrutiny of entire material available on record, allowed the claim petition by awarding total compensation of Rs.19,22,670/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization and saddled 90% liability on the appellant - Insurance Company. Being aggrieved, the insurance company is in the appeal before this Court. 6. Sri.Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed an error by saddling 90% liability on the appellant - Insurance Company and 10% on the deceased, who is the rider of the motor cycle. It is contended that the Tribunal without taking note of the fact that the deceased, who is the rider of the motor cycle was not holding an effective driving license to ride the vehicle as on the date of alleged accident and the deceased is also charge sheeted under Sections 3 and 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) saddled 90% liability on the Insurance Company. It is further contended that the owner of the motor vehicle handed over the vehicle to a person who did not hold a license to ride the vehicle and has violated provision of Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB MFA No. 101905 of 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’). Hence, the Tribunal without considering these aspects and the evidence available on record saddled 90% liability on the Insurance Company which is erroneous and contrary to the settled principle of law. It is also contended that the Tribunal has also committed an error in awarding higher compensation under the head of loss of dependency and other heads. Further, the Tribunal erred in considering that the claimant No.2 is dependent, whereas, claimant No.2 is the sister of the deceased and she cannot be considered as dependent. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, Sri.Anjaneya M, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal considering the material evidence available on record and charge sheet material has rightly saddled the liability on the Insurance Company which does not call for any interference in this appeal. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB MFA No. 101905 of 2024 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that would arise for our consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference in this appeal? 9. Answer to the above point would be in the ‘partly affirmative’ for the following reasons: 10. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute the occurrence of the accident on 27.07.2022 resulting in death of Sri.Fairuj Khan. It is also not in dispute that the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-35-D-7331 was insured with the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the legal heirs of the deceased have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act. 11. Insofar as quantum of compensation, the contention of the insurance company is that the Tribunal has awarded higher compensation. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just and proper compensation which is unaltered. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB MFA No. 101905 of 2024 12. Insofar as liability is concerned, the contention of the Insurance Company is that at the time of accident the rider of the motor cycle was not holding valid and effective driving license to ride the motor cycle and he is also charge sheeted under Sections 3 and 181 of the MV Act. The Tribunal taking note of the fact that the rider of the motorcycle was not having a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident and the charge sheet is also filed against the deceased rider, has saddled 10% liability on the deceased rider by recording the finding that the deceased rode the bike without any driving license and without following the law of nation and it is a penal act and if it is allowed, no person would want to take driving license from the competent authority. Though non-possessing of valid driving license ipso-facto would not lead to conclusion that the deceased rider was negligent. The perusal of the complaint, panchanama and the charge sheet would indicate that the deceased rider of the motor cycle was also negligent and contributed to the accident in question. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and also taking note of the fact that the deceased was riding two wheeler and the offending vehicle was tipper lorry which is a big vehicle, we are of the view - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB MFA No. 101905 of 2024 that the apportionment of contributory negligence is required to be modified and accordingly, we hold that the deceased rider has contributed to the accident to the extent of 20% and the driver of the tipper lorry to the extent of 80% and to the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and award of the tribunal with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company is modified. Insofar as contention that claimant No.2 is not a dependent of the deceased rider is liable to be rejected as the pleading and evidence on record indicate that claimant No.1 is the mother of the deceased, she has died and claimant No.2 is the unmarried sister of the deceased. In the cross examination, PW.1 has stated that she is doing Beedi work in the home, that itself is not sufficient to come to conclusion that PW.1 is not dependent on the income of the deceased. Her evidence clearly demonstrates that she is unmarried and the entire family was dependent on the income of the deceased. 13. For the aforementioned reasons I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Appeal is allowed in part. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB MFA No. 101905 of 2024 ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 08.02.2024 passed in MVC No.622/2022 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hubballi is modified. iii. The appellant is liable to pay compensation to the extent of 80% to the claimants. iv. Insofar as the quantum of compensation and interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the same remains unaltered. v. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted back to the Tribunal. vi. The appellant shall deposit the compensation amount along with the interest before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks to the extent of its liability. vii. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending I.A’s, if any, does not survive for consideration. viii. Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM, ABK/CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27