- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9730 MFA No. 23664 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23664 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, REPTD., BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, TP-HUB, II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580029. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.N RAICHUR, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI. PUNDLIK S/O KUSAPPA @ USAPPA PANDI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: VEGETABLE VENDOR, R/O: VILLAGE GANDIGWAD, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI. BABU S. NEGINAHAL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: VILLAGE GANDIGWAD, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUKUMAR V A, ADV FOR R1 SRI. RAM P. GHORPADE, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:12-07-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.2272/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,12,500/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. 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 MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 12:54:10 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9730 MFA No. 23664 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant—insurer, challenging the judgment and award dated 12.07.2013 passed in MVC No.2272 of 2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. The claimant met with an accident on 10.05.2009 while traveling in a goods tempo bearing registration No.KA-22/9552, and sustained grievous injuries and has become permanently disabled. He was admitted to the District Hospital, Belgavi and he was shifted to Vijaya Hospital, Belgaum, where he took treatment as indoor patient for more than a week. Further, it is contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Reg No.KA-22/9552. Hence, prays to allow the claim petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9730 MFA No. 23664 of 2013 4. Per contra, respondent No.1—owner of the offending vehicle, though he appeared through the counsel, did not file a statement of objections. 5. Respondent No.2—insurer of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the claimant before the filing of this claim petition, filed another claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in WCA No.19/2010 and the said petition was withdrawn. Again, the claimant has filed this claim petition. 6. It is contended that in the claim petition filed before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, the claimant has stated that he was traveling as a coolie in the said vehicle. But in the present claim petition, it is stated that the claimant was an unauthorised passenger. Further, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. Hence, prays - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9730 MFA No. 23664 of 2013 that claim petition against respondent No.2 is liable to be dismissed. 7. To substantiate his case, the claimant examined himself as PW-1 and the doctor as PW-2 and marked 14 documents as Exs.P-1 to 14. In rebuttal, on behalf of respondent No.2, a Senior Assistant of the insurance company was examined as RW-1 and marked 4 documents as Exs.R-1 to 4. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and document evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, with cost and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of ₹1,12,500/- with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount. 9. The insurance company aggrieved by the judgment and award, passed by the tribunal in MVC No.2272/2011 has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9730 MFA No. 23664 of 2013 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company, and the learned counsel for the claimant. 11. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that before the filing of this claim petition, the claimant had filed another claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation in WCA No.19 of 2010. He has stated in the said claim petition that he was working as a coolie in the offending vehicle. He submits that, on the contrary, in the present case, the claimant has contended that he was travelling in the vehicle as an unauthorised passenger. He submits that the claimant has taken an inconsistent plea in the claim petition before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and before the Tribunal, in the instant petition. Hence, he submits that these aspects were not considered by the Tribunal in the right perspective and of committed an error in fastening the liability on the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9730 MFA No. 23664 of 2013 insurance company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant supported the impugned judgment and award, and prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point, that would arise for consideration is regarding liability. 15. There is no dispute that the claimant met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. Initially, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner in WCA No.19 of 2010, wherein he stated that he was working as a coolie in the offending vehicle. Subsequently, the claim petition in WCA No.19 of 2010 was withdrawn, and he has filed the present claim petition before the Tribunal, contending that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9730 MFA No. 23664 of 2013 he was travelling in the offending vehicle along with the goods. 16. Though, initially the claimant had filed a claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner stating that he was working as a coolie, admittedly there is no dispute that he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Because of the wrong advice from his advocate, the claimant has filed a claim petition before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. After hearing about the defect in the claim petition in WCA No.19/2010, he withdrew the said claim petition and filed the instant petition before the Tribunal. 17. The Tribunal, considering the entire material on record, has rightly held that the claimant was traveling in the offending vehicle along with the goods and he was not an unauthorised passenger or paid passenger but, he was traveling as an owner of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9730 MFA No. 23664 of 2013 goods for transportation. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. 18. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award. 19. In the result, this Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. 20. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14