- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10527 MFA No. 101119 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101119 OF 2019 (MV-I) C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100087 OF 2022 IN MFA NO. 101119 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NO.25, PLOT NO.D/38, NAVANAGAR-BAGALKOTE, REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHASHANK HEGDE, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O SHARANAPPA ANGADI AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: GOUNDI WORK, R/O: GADDANAKERI, TQ: BAGALKOTE, DIST: BAGALKOTE- 587101. 2. SMT. RENUKA W/O KALLAPPA HADLI AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE, NO.KA-29/M-7417, R/O: YADAHALLI, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE-587117. 3. SRI. SHIDRAMAPPA S/O KALLAPPA HALINGALI AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: YADAHALLI, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE-587117. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. HIREMATH, ADV FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 & R3 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.509/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BAGALKOT, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.30 12:21:20 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10527 MFA No. 101119 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2022 Rs.2,00,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT. IN MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100087 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. MANJUNATH S/O SHARANAPPA ANGADI AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. GOUNDI WORK, R/O. GADDANAKERI, TQ./DIST. BAGALKOT 587102. …CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI. M.M. HIREMATH, ADV) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 25, PLOT NO.D/38/NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT 587101 R/BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. 2. SMT. RENUKA W/O KALLAPPA HADLI AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. OWNER OF THE VEHICLE, NO. KA-29/M-7417, R/O. YADAHALLI, TQ/DIST. BAGALKOT-587102. 3. SHIDRAMAPPA S/O KALLAPPA HALINGALI AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. YADAHALLI, TQ/DIST. BAGALKOT- 587102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRIYUTHS. SHASHANK S. HEGDE AND PREETI SHASHANK, ADVS FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 & R3 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.101119/2019 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 509/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10527 MFA No. 101119 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2022 THIS APPEAL & CROSS OBJECTION 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) MFA No.101119 of 2019 is filed by the insurance company challenging the liability fastened on it vide judgment and award dated 20.11.2018 passed in MVC No.509 of 2016 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II at Bagalkot (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereas, MFA Cross objection No.100087 of 2022 is filed by the injured petitioner seeking an enhancement of the compensation, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10527 MFA No. 101119 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2022 On 08.03.2016, at about 18:30 hours, the petitioner and his friend, deceased Prakash Kudri, were returning to their home after visiting the temple; when they reached Goddankeri bus stop, the driver of the Cruiser bearing registration No.KA-29/M-7417 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. It is contended that the petitioner spent a huge amount towards medical expenses. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking a compensation. 3. The owner of the vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and admitted the place, date, and time of accident and also contended that as of the date of accident, the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, and the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Accordingly, on these grounds, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10527 MFA No. 101119 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2022 prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the vehicle. 4. The drivers of the Cruiser adopted the statement of objections filed by the owner of the said vehicle and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against him. 5. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Further, there is a delay in lodging the complaint. It is also contended that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10527 MFA No. 101119 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2022 7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, examined the doctor as PW2, and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. 8. In rebuttal, the Senior Assistant of the insurance company was examined as RW-1; the owner and driver of the offending vehicle marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3 with consent, but they have not entered the witness box. 9. The Tribunal after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 20.11.2018 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation of the amount. It is also held that the respondents before the Tribunal viz., the owner, driver and insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10527 MFA No. 101119 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2022 compensation amount to the petitioner, and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount. 10. As stated above, the insurance company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.509 of 2016, filed an appeal in MFA No.101119/2019 challenging the liability, and the petitioner aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, filed an MFA cross objection in MFA CROB No.100087/2022 seeking an enhancement of the compensation. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 12. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the alleged accident took place on 08.03.2016 and the complaint was lodged on the same day at 10.15 p.m., though the accident occurred at 06.30 p.m. Therefore, there is a delay of four hours in lodging the complaint. He also submits that the vehicle - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10527 MFA No. 101119 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2022 number was not mentioned in the complaint. He further submits that the complaint was registered against an unknown vehicle and subsequently, the petitioner, colluding with the police officials, filed a charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA-29/M- 7417. He also submits that the Tribunal did not correctly consider the said aspect, and committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company. He also submits that in MLC report, it is stated that it was a motorcycle accident, and not caused by the vehicle bearing No.KA-29/M-7417. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the insurance company, and dismiss the cross objection filed by the petitioner against the insurance company. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of the accident, the petitioner sustained the grievous injuries, and he was unable to see the number of the vehicle which caused the accident. He submits that the police, after investigation - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10527 MFA No. 101119 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2022 filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the cruiser bearing registration No.KA-29/M-7417. He also submits that neither the owner, nor the insurance company has challenged the charge-sheet filed against the driver of the cruiser bearing registration No.KA-29/M-7417. He submits that, as the petitioner has sustained the grievous injuries; he was not in a position to give a proper statement before the doctor. He submits that the police, after investigation, found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Cruiser bearing registration No.KA-29/M-7417. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company and allow the cross objection filed by the petitioner. 14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10527 MFA No. 101119 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2022 15. The points that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability and the quantum. REG. LIABILITY: 16. There is no dispute that the petitioner has met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. Though, the complaint was lodged against an unknown vehicle, the police, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the Cruiser bearing registration No.KA-29/M-7417 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act in Crime No.75 of 2016. 17. The petitioner has placed on record, the sufficient materials to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Cruiser bearing No.KA-29/M-7417. The Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability on the owner, driver and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10527 MFA No. 101119 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2022 the insurance company. Hence, I do not find any grounds to differ with the said findings recorded by the Tribunal. REG. QUANTUM: 18. Though, the petitioner contended that he has suffered a permanent disability, to prove the same, he has examined the doctor as PW-2. From the perusal of the deposition of PW-2, the doctor, he has not opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability. The Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, which is just and proper, and do not call for any interference. 19. In view of the above discussion I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal in MFA No.101119/2019 and the Cross Objection in MFA CROB No.100087/2022 are dismissed; - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10527 MFA No. 101119 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2022 ii. Office is directed to transmit the amount in deposit and the Trial Court records to the Tribunal, forthwith. iii. In view of the disposal of the matters, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18