- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9349 MFA No. 21023 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. 21023 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. HUSSAIN S/O. RAJESAB CHAPPARABHANDI AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, NEAR MARUTHI MEDICALS, BETAGERI-GADAG. (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE) 2. ANWAR S/O. RAJESAB CHAPPARABHANDI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS, R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, NEAR MARUTHI MEDICALS, BETAGIRI-GADAG. (DRIVER OF MOTOR CYCLE) …APPELLANTS (BY SRIYUTHS. S.B. PATIL & SADIQ N GOODWALA, ADVS) AND: 1. BASAYYA SHEKHARAYYA SARANGAMATH AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. BEHIND SCHOOL NO.2, PALLED TOTA, GADAG. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.N NARASAMMANAVAR, ADV) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173 OF MV ACT, R/W ORDER 41 RULE 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:21.11.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.169/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESDIING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AND ADDL. MACT., GADAG, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,60,200/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER : MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.30 12:09:48 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9349 MFA No. 21023 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the owner and rider of the motorcycle challenging the judgment and award dated 21.11.2011 passed in MVC No.169/2006 by the learned Fast Track Court, and Additional MACT, Gadag (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 02.02.2006 at about 10.30 pm, the claimant was proceeding on his bicycle on Station Road, Gadag, from Gandhi Circle to Mahendrakar Circle. A motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-26/J-678, which was ridden by the rider in a rash and negligent manners to endanger human life, dashed to the bicycle, as a result of which, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. It is contended that the claimant incurred more than Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. The claimant was aged about 40 years, and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the road - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9349 MFA No. 21023 of 2012 traffic accident, the claimant is unable to do day-to-day work, as he used to do before the accident. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle filed a written statement denying the age, occupation, income and denied that his vehicle had caused the accident. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against him. 4. Respondent No.2-rider of the motorcycle, filed a written statement denying the age, occupation, income and address of the claimant. It is denied that he has caused the accident to the claimant. Hence prays to dismiss the claim petition against him. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues. 6. The claimant, to substantiate his claim, examined himself as PW.1, examined the Doctor as PW.2, and marked 9 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-9. In rebuttal, respondent Nos.1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9349 MFA No. 21023 of 2012 and 2 before the Tribunal were examined as RWs.1 and 2, examined one witness as RW-3, and marked 5 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-5. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide Judgment dated 21.11.2011. It is ordered that the claimant is entitled to global compensation of Rs.4,60,200/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the global compensation amount from the date of petition till its complete realisation, and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the owner and rider of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and shall deposit the award amount within two months from the date of the award. 8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-the owner and rider of the motorcycle, respectively, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal, have preferred this appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the owner and rider, and the learned counsel for the claimant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9349 MFA No. 21023 of 2012 10. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the claimant has failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, i.e. Respondent No.2. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle i.e., Respondent No.2. He submits that a charge-sheet is filed against the rider of the offending motorcycle. He also submits that, to prove the permanent disability, he examined the Doctor as PW.2. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment, and award. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The points, that would arise for consideration are as follows: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9349 MFA No. 21023 of 2012 i. Whether the appellants prove that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and erroneous? ii. What order or award? 14. The claimant, to prove that he met with an accident on 02.02.2006, and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending motorcycle, has produced a copy of the charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-6. Ex.P- 6 discloses that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle i.e. Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has not challenged the charge-sheet filed against him. Thus, the claimant, by producing Ex.P-6 has proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider i.e., Respondent No.2 of the offending motorcycle. 15. The claimant has sustained grievous injuries and he took treatment from PW.2-Doctor, who has deposed that, he has examined the claimant and issued the permanent disability certificate marked as Ex.P-8. The claimant has also produced - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9349 MFA No. 21023 of 2012 the wound certificate marked as Ex.P-5, which discloses that the claimant has suffered a compound comminuted fracture on both bones of the right leg and a vascular injury and that he was sent to KIMS hospital for further treatment. The Doctor has opined that the claimant has suffered disability to the stump of right let to an extent of 70% and 10% to the knee and hip i.e. totally 80% disability to the whole body. The Tribunal has taken the disability at 80%. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW.2-Doctor and also the bills produced by the petitioner has granted global compensation Rs.4,60,200/- which is just and proper, do not call for interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, I do no find any error in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 16. Accordingly, I answer the points for consideration in the negative and pass the following: ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9349 MFA No. 21023 of 2012 The judgment and award dated 21.11.2011 passed in MVC No.169/2006 by the learned Fast Track Court judge and Additional MACT, Gadag, is hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. Amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB