- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34964 MFA No. 8620 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8620/2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI BABU VARGHESE, S/O VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT PAPANACHERI, KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M ABDUL RAHIMAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SAJI E U, S/O UTHAUP, ELAVUM MURIYIL HOUSE, PAYYAVOOR POST, TALIPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA CO. LTD., NO.89, 2ND FLOOR, FASHION TOWER, N H ROAD, CALTEX JUNCTION, KANNUR, KERALA-670 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.S. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT. MANJULA .N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34964 MFA No. 8620 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 31.08.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.70/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, KODAGU-MADIKERI SITTING AT VIRAJPET, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsels for both sides are present. 2. Heard the arguments of both sides. 3. This appeal is filed against the dismissal of the claim petition before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Kodagu-Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet, passed in MVC No.70 of 2017 vide judgment and award dated 31.08.2018. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has mainly contended that the claimant was driver of the Maruthi Wagnor Car bearing registration No.KL-59/8133 and in order to avoid accident with motorbike coming from the opposite direction, the claimant turned the car to the right side. He turned the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34964 MFA No. 8620 of 2019 vehicle to a trench, fell down and sustained injury. The learned counsel further contended that the claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the MV Act before the Tribunal and as he could not prove the negligence, the Tribunal observed that the claimant himself was a tort feaser and therefore, not entitled for any compensation. Further, the learned counsel submitted that a criminal case was filed against the claimant and it was ended in acquittal and thus, he was not the tort feaser. 5. In view of the above submission, this Court finds it just and reasonable to remand the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the case on merits. 6. Accordingly, the following order is passed: (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to give a reasonable opportunity to both sides for adducing evidence and to submit arguments and then decide the case on merits. (iii) The Tribunal shall decide the matter within three months from the date of receipt of receiving the records. (iv) Registry is directed to send the records in ten days. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34964 MFA No. 8620 of 2019 (v) Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 26.09.2025. (vi) In view of the order dated 11.03.2022 passed on I.A. No.1/2019, the claimant is not entitled for any interest for the delayed period. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 102