- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080 MFA No. 103100 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103100 OF 2016 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103099 OF 2016 (MV) IN MFA NO. 103100 OF 2016 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C. BELAGAVI. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. L. MATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SADASHIV @ SADU S/O. BASAPRABHU SANGOLLI, AGE 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVALAPUR, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-589001. 2. SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. SADASHIV @ SADU SANGOLLI, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DEVALAPUR, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-589001. 3. SRI. BASAVARAJ RAMALINGAPPA MUDINAIKAR, AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DAMBAL, TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-587603. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MERCHANTS BANK BUILDING, S.R. CIRCLE, BAILHONGAL-589010. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADV. FOR R1 & 2; SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R4; NOTICE TO R3 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF M.V ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C NO.1132/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080 MFA No. 103100 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016 AND ADDL. MACT BAILHONGAL, AT: BAILHONGAL, DATED 02.06.2016 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. IN MFA NO. 103099 OF 2016 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, BELAGAVI. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. L. MATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MUGUTSAB MODINSAB ALLABAI, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVALAPUR, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-589001. 2. SMT. SAIRABANU W/O. MUTUTSAB ALLABAI, AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DEVALAPUR, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-589001. 3. SRI. BASAVARAJ RAMALINGAPPA MUDINAIKAR, AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DAMBAL, TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-587603. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MERCHANTS BANK BUILDING, S.R. CIRCLE, BAILHONGAL-589010. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADV. FOR R1 & 2; SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R4; NOTICE TO R3 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF M.V. ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C NO.1133/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT BAILHONGAL, AT: BAILHONGAL, DATED 02.06.2016 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080 MFA No. 103100 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 02.06.2016 passed in M.V.C. No. 1132/2013 and 1133/2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Bailhongal. Both the petitions were filed by the parents of the deceased to claim compensation. Both these appeals are filed challenging the impugned judgment on the ground that the deceased rider of the motorcycle had contributed for the accident in question and therefore the Tribunal ought to have considered his contribution for the accident in question. However, the Tribunal fastened the entire liability on the owner of the bus. Only on that ground the appeals are filed. 2. It is the case of the claimants that on 29.12.2012 sons of the claimants by name Shivanand Sangolli and Muktuhusain Allabi were going on a motorcycle. The said Shivanand Sangolli was riding and Muktuhusain Allabi was the pillion. They met with an accident around 12.30 p.m. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080 MFA No. 103100 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. KA-42-F-1451 which was coming from the opposite direction as a result of which both the rider and pillion sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. It is the contention of the claimants that the said Shivanand Sangolli was aged 18 years and similarly Muktuhusain Allabi was also aged 18 years. With these reasons prayed to award compensation. 3. The appellant/respondent No.1-owner of the bus filed objections to the claim petition contending that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. The driver was not at all negligent in driving the bus. The rider of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving licence to ride the motorcycle. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for claiming compensation against the respondent No.1. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080 MFA No. 103100 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016 4. From the rival contentions of the parties the Tribunal framed necessary issues. Both the cases were taken up together for trial. The claimants examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked eight documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.8. Respondent No.1 examined RW1 and got marked one document as per Ex.R.1. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Tribunal assessed compensation of Rs.8,56,000/- to the claimants in each petition by the impugned common judgment and award. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that looking to the prosecution papers especially Ex.P.4A and Mahazar, the accident had taken place on the middle of the road. It was a head-on collusion. The said document itself reveals that accident taken place due to negligence of rider of the motorcycle. He further contends that rider of the motorcycle was not having valid and effective driving licence which shows that rider of the motorcycle - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080 MFA No. 103100 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016 was not having knowledge of riding the motorcycle. The Tribunal has not considered this fact and not apportioned the contributory negligence of rider of the motorcycle. Therefore prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned common judgment. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants vehemently contended that not holding a driving licence is not a ground to hold that rider of motorcycle was riding in a rash and negligent manner. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2018 [1] SCC 750 and Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh & Ors. reported in 2008 Kar. MAC 541 [SC]. He has also relied on the judgment in the case of Meera Devi & Ors. Vs. HRTC & Ors. reported in 2014 [2] SCC 1. He further submitted that complaint was given by the Police Constable who is an eyewitness to the accident. He has specifically mentioned that accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of the bus. Merely spot of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080 MFA No. 103100 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016 accident is the middle of the road, does not mean that accident had taken place due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Both the rider and the pillion are no more. RW1 should have explained as to why the rider of the motorcycle came towards the middle of the road. No such explanation was given and RW1 contends that he lodged complaint to the Police but the Police refused to receive the complaint. He was not sent the said complaint to the higher authorities of the concerned S.H.O. of the Police Station. These facts reveal that evidence of RW1 is not reliable. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the appeals. 7. He further submits that claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement of the compensation and considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., the amount of compensation be enhanced. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080 MFA No. 103100 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016 8. The only point that arises for consideration in this case is “whether the accident had taken place due to negligence of rider of the motorcycle?” 9. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment at paragraph Nos.17 to 19 discussed in detail the facts of the case and appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and held that entire negligence was on the part of the driver of the bus. As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, Ex.P.4 shows that accident had taken place near to the middle of the road. The rider of the motorcycle was coming from the opposite direction. For the sake of discussion, even if it is believed that rider of motorcycle was coming at wrong side of the road or came to the middle of the road, does not mean that the driver of the bus shall go and hit it. What are the precautionary measures RW1 had taken at the time of the accident is not explained by him. Even if for the sake of discussion if it is accepted that rider of the motorcycle was negligent, had - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080 MFA No. 103100 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016 RW1 had taken proper care he could have avoided the collusion of both the vehicles. 10. Looking to Ex.P.4 after the accident the bus went ahead to the extreme left side of the road to an extent of 20 feet, which also indicates that driver of the bus was in a high speed, therefore he could not control his vehicle. It appears, in view of the said reason, the Police Constable who had seen the accident has given complaint as per Ex.P.1 mentioning that accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of the bus. The Investigating Officer appears to have recorded the statement of other witnesses and out of them Conductor of the bus was also one of the eyewitnesses. Considering the material on record, the concerned Investigating Officer chargesheeted the driver of the bus for causing the accident in question. 11. RW1 is the driver of the bus who is an accused before the Criminal Court. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to expect truth from him that he was not responsible for the accident. In view of these - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080 MFA No. 103100 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016 circumstances only on the basis of evidence of RW1 as well as Ex.P.4 and P.4A, it cannot be held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. The Tribunal has properly considered the contentions of the parties and held that accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of the bus. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings. 12. The learned counsel for the claimants contend that the amount of compensation be enhanced even in the absence of appeal filed by the claimants and no amount of compensation is awarded towards future prospects. Admittedly the claimants were not having fixed income/ salary, they were said to be earning from doing tailoring as well as agricultural coolie work. Prior to the passing of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, the impugned judgment was delivered. Therefore the Tribunal has not taken into account the future prospects for enhancement of the compensation. To - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080 MFA No. 103100 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016 reconsider the entire judgment in respect of the compensation, there must be an appeal. As on the date of passing of the impugned judgment, question of awarding future prospects in respect of self employed persons was not in practice. Considering these facts and circumstances this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. 13. For the aforesaid discussions the above said question is answered in the negative and pass the following order. ORDER The appeals are dismissed. The common judgment and award dated 02.06.2016 passed in M.V.C. No. 1132/2013 and 1133/2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Bailhongal, is confirmed. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080 MFA No. 103100 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016 Registry is directed to send back the trial court records along with the copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVV /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5