- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8631 MFA No. 104118 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104118 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. BABUGOUDA S/O YALLAPPA PATIL, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: AMBEDKAR NAGAR, BAUXITE ROAD, NEAR MARATHA MANDAL DENTAL COLLEGE, BELAGAVI-590 020. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI POLICE HEADQUARTERS, POLICE BHAVAN, BELAGAVI-590 021. 2. THE A.D.G.P., THE KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, INTERNAL SECURITY, RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.2235/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IX-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8631 MFA No. 104118 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.2235/2015 dated 10.08.2017 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi (for short, ‘Tribunal’), questioning the dismissal of claim petition. 2. Heard the arguments and perused the material placed before the Court. 3. The claimant, while riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/R-9357 along with two pillion riders, met with a road traffic accident and sustained injuries. But the entire rashness and negligence is on the claimant as mentioned in FIR (Ex.P1), Complaint (Ex.P2), Chargesheet (Ex.P7) and Spot Panchanama (Ex.P3). The claimant has filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’), seeking - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8631 MFA No. 104118 of 2017 compensation. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition, on the reason that, the claimant himself is a tortfeasor, cannot be entitled for awarding compensation, making liable the respondents to pay compensation. Therefore, the Trial Court has dismissed the claim petition. Thus, the claimant has preferred the present appeal. 4. In the present case, as per FIR (Ex.P1), Complaint (Ex.P2), Charge sheet (Ex.P7) and Spot Panchanama (Ex.P3), the entire rashness and negligence is on the claimant. While he was riding the motorcycle along with two pillion riders, dashed the Toyota Innova Car bearing registration No.KA-43/G-33. The claimant has filed the clam petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, without making the owner and insurer of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/R-9357 as parties. Though when the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, the rashness and negligence need not be pleaded and need not be proved. But the claimant has only made the owner of Toyota Innova Car bearing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8631 MFA No. 104118 of 2017 registration No.KA-43/G-33 as respondent/party, but has not made the owner and insurer of motorcycle as parties. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in observing that the claimant, being a tortfeasor, could not have filed the claim petition only against the owner of the car, on the guise of making claim against the owner of car. If the owner and insurer of motorcycle are made as parties to the proceedings, then the Court could have considered directing either of the insurers to pay compensation, with liberty to recover the same from the respective vehicle owners. But in the present case, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are not made as parties. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in finding fault of the claimant that making the owner of car alone as respondent/party to the claim petition, is nothing but getting enrichment by the claimant for his own fault. Therefore, there is no merit found in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8631 MFA No. 104118 of 2017 ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award passed in MVC No.2235/2015 dated 10.08.2017 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi, is confirmed. iii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 106