- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9362 MFA No. 25062 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25062 OF 2012 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMESH S/O VITHAL SULIBHAVI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: SUREBAN VILLAGE, NOW AT MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. SMT. SUMITRA W/O RAMESH SULIBHAVI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SUREBAN VILLAGE, NOW AT MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PAVAN B DODDATTI, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. CHANDUSAB S/O FAKRUSAB MUGATKHANE, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRILCULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: SHIVAPUR, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI (OWNER OF BAJAJ TEMPO TRAX KA-24/M-1857) 2. THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED BRANCH, 1426/28-C, LAXMI TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, KONDA LANE CHOWK, LAXMIPURI, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHASHANK HEGDE & SMT.PREETI SHASHANK, ADVS FOR R2 AND NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:16-06-2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.741/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT.NO.IX, MUDHOL, DISMISSING THE PEITTION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.05 15:31:57 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9362 MFA No. 25062 of 2012 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: 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 by the appellants challenging the judgment and award dated 16.06.2011 passed in MVC No.741/2006 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Mudhol (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. The appellants were the petitioners and the respondents were the respondents. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows : The petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of Abhishek i.e., the son of petitioner No.1 in the road traffic accident that occurred on 17.02.2006. The deceased - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9362 MFA No. 25062 of 2012 was aged about two and a half years, who was a minor and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo trax vehicle in question, i.e, bearing Regn.No.KA-24/M- 1857. Hence, the petitioners pray to allow the claim petition. 4. Respondent No.1—owner of Tempo Trax filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. He denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo trax bearing registration No.KA.24-M.1857. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1. 5. Respondent No.2 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. There is a violation of policy conditions and therefore, respondent No.2 is not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9362 MFA No. 25062 of 2012 liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioners, to prove their claim petition, examined petitioner No.1 as PW1 and marked 8 documents as Exhibits P1 to P8. In rebuttal, the official of respondent No.2 was examined as RW-1 and no documents were marked. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition. 9. The petitioners, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9362 MFA No. 25062 of 2012 petition on the ground that the petitioners have failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle in question, as the complaint was lodged against an unknown vehicle and even in the spot panchanama, the vehicle number is not shown. He submits that the police, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet and neither respondent No.1/the owner, nor respondent No.2/the insurer of the offending vehicle has challenged the said charge-sheet. 12. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt.Lakshmamma and others, reported in 2008 Kant. M.A.C. 145 (Kant) and submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt.Lakshmamma (referred to supra). - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9362 MFA No. 25062 of 2012 13. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and consequently, allow the claim petition. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and there is a violation of the policy conditions. He submits that respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioners. Hence, he submits that the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned judgment. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 15. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9362 MFA No. 25062 of 2012 petition filed by the petitioners, without considering the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Lakshmamma (supra)? (ii) Whether the petitioners prove that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and erroneous? (iii) What order or award? Reg. Point Nos.1 and 2: 16. These points are interlinked, hence they are discussed together to avoid repetition of facts. 17. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, examined petitioner No.1 as PW-1. He deposed that on 17.02.2006 at about 04.00 p.m., they were returning from Surebana village on foot and when they reached near the land of Muttana Gowda, at about 07.30 p.m., a bullock cart was coming behind them. Behind the bullock cart, a Bajaj Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA.24-M.1857, came in a high speed, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9362 MFA No. 25062 of 2012 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bullock cart. Due to the impact, the bullock cart got scattered and it dashed to the elbow of Kamalawwa, who was carrying the deceased. As a result, Abhishek fell down on the ground and the wheel of the bullock cart went over the body of Abhishek and consequently, he died. 18. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, which is evidenced by the charge-sheet marked as Ex.P4. The charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner has not denied the accident. Neither respondent No.1 nor the insurance company has challenged the charge-sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. 19. If the offending vehicle was not involved and a false case was being lodged, and if the owner has colluded with the petitioners, it was for the insurance company to challenge the charge sheet and to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9362 MFA No. 25062 of 2012 request the police to investigate properly and file an appropriate case for having lodged a false complaint. 20. Admittedly, respondent No.2 has not taken any steps to challenge the charge sheet filed by the police. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Lakshamma (referred to supra) has laid down the proposition of law in paragraph 6, which reads as follows: “6. Then, coming to the question of involvement of the vehicle, admittedly charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the vehicle, the owner has not denied the accident. FIR is registered in Crime No. 10/05 by the Malur Police. If really the vehicle was not involved, if a false case has been lodged and if the owner has colluded with the claimants, it was for the Insurance Company to challenge the same to quash the charge-sheet and to direct the police to investigate properly and file an appropriate case for having lodged a false case when there was no accident and vehicle in question had not been involved. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9362 MFA No. 25062 of 2012 The learned counsel for the appellant submits that after case was filed, the matter was entrusted to a private agency for investigation and according to the report of the investigation of a private agency, the vehicle in question had not been involved in the accident. But, we cannot place reliance on a report submitted by a private agency when a charge-sheet is filed by the police after a detailed Investigation and when the driver and owner of the vehicle have not disputed about the involvement of the vehicle in question. Therefore, this point is also answered against the appellant.” (emphasis supplied) 21. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle has not denied the same, a presumption has to be drawn that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was involved in the accident. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9362 MFA No. 25062 of 2012 22. Insofar as the award of compensation is concerned, the deceased was a minor, aged about 2½ years as on the date of the accident. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244, had awarded a compensation of ₹5,00,000/- for the death of a minor. 24. Considering the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishan Gopal (referred to supra), the petitioners herein are entitled to the compensation amount of ₹5,00,000/- with an interest, at the rate of nine percent per annum. 25. As already held above, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, respondent No.2, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, is liable to indemnify respondent No.1—the owner. The respondents are - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9362 MFA No. 25062 of 2012 therefore jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. 26. In view of the above discussion, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. 27. Point No.3: In the result, I proceed to pass the following order : ORDER (i) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 16.06.2011 passed in MVC No.741/2006 by the learned M.A.C.T- IX, Mudhol, is set aside. The claim petition is allowed. (iii) The petitioners are entitled to a compensation of ₹5,00,000/- with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. (iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9362 MFA No. 25062 of 2012 compensation with accrued interest thereon. (v) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire compensation with accrued interest, within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8