- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1895 MFA No. 20613 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20613 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PUTTAWWA W/O. NAGARAJ KADAGAD @ KADAGADAVAR, AGE:24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. SHIVARAJ S/O. NAGARAJ KADAGAD @ KADAGADAVAR, AGE:07 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. RAVI S/O. NAGARAJ KADAGAD @ KADAGADAVAR, AGE:04 YEARS, 4. LAXMI D/O. NAGARAJ KADAGAD @ KADAGADAVAR, AGE:02 YEARS, (APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS, R/BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E., APPELLANT NO.1) 5. BHIMAPPA S/O. WADAKAPPA KADAGAD @ KADAGADAVAR, AGE:64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 6. SMT. AMBAWWA W/O. BHIMAPPA KADAGAD @ KADAGADAVAR, AGE:57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O. INAM-DYAMANAKOPPA POST, BELAGALPET, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI, NOW AT, NAVALUR, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. …APPELLANTS Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1895 MFA No. 20613 of 2013 (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. P. SHIVA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NEHARU NAGAR, NIRMAL NIVAS, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI. (OWNER OF BUS BEARING NO.KA 22/B-1704) 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SAVITRI SADANA, OPP: KITTAL COLLEGE, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29-11-2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, DHARWAD IN MVC.NO.385/2011 BY AWARDING THE COMPENSATION REASONABLY AND ADEQUATELY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1895 MFA No. 20613 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 29.11.2012 passed in MVC No.385/2011 on the file of Court of Fast Track-III, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), questioning the dismissal of claim petition filed by the claimants. 2. Initially the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V.Act’), seeking compensation. Later it got converted into Section 166 of the M.V.Act. Therefore, the Tribunal as if considered the claim petition as 166 of the M.V.Act and dismissed the claim petition on the reason that in the complaint, FIR and chargesheet the entire allegation is made against the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has formed opinion after appreciation of evidence on record that due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself caused the accident in question and also died on spot in the said accident. Therefore, the driver of bus has made complaint before the police, after investigation who had filed abated chargesheet - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1895 MFA No. 20613 of 2013 against the deceased. Therefore, though the claimants might have examined oral evidence of the witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4 that the accident is caused due to rash and negligence of the KSRTC bus, but their evidence is not supported by any other documentary evidence. Hence, the Tribunal disbelieved oral evidence on behalf of the claimants and believing the documentary evidence such as FIR, complaint and chargesheet, which are produced by the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JANABAI WD/O DINKARRAO GHORPADE AND OTHERS Vs. ICICI LAMBOARD INSURANCE COMPNARY LIMITED reported in (2022) 10 SCC 512. 4. When the claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, then the aspect of consideration of rash and negligence arises as the compensation to be determined under Section 166 of the M.V.Act on the theory of actionable negligence. Since, in the present case, it is proved from the FIR, complaint and chargesheet that the deceased himself is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1895 MFA No. 20613 of 2013 responsible for the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in dismissing the claim petition. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the same, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64