- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11266 MFA No. 20972 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20972 OF 2013 (MV-D) BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE 1241, E WARD, KOLHAPUR, BY ITS DO OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI BELAGAVI, RPTED THROUGH ITS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE AT HUBLI, ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBLI, R/BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER MRS. SAVITA KAMAT. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VAIJANTA W/O. RANGARAO PATIL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KURANKAR CHAL, SANKESHWAR, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. RANGARAO KESHAV PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KURANKAR CHAL, SANKESHWAR, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SANJAY DUNDAPPA MARGUDRI AGE: MAJOR, OCC. OWNER, R/O. BHADAGAON, TQ. GADAHINGLAJ, DIST. KOLHAPUR. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R3- NOTICE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17-11-2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.194/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,18,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.11 12:09:55 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11266 MFA No. 20972 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, 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) This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 17.11.2012 in MVC No.194/2009 passed by the Fast Track Court-I and Additional MACT, Belgaum (‘the Tribunal’ for short). 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 2.1. On 26.12.2007, the deceased was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.MH-09/AT-8545 from Uttur to Ajara for the work of respondent No.1 (before the tribunal)/owner of the motorcycle. The motorcycle dashed to the bridge and the accident was caused. As a result, the deceased suffered multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short) seeking - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11266 MFA No. 20972 of 2013 compensation for the death of the deceased. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. A Notice was issued to the owner of the motorcycle. Despite the service of a notice, he remained unrepresented, and was placed ex-parte. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that, the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.2 was examined as PW-1, and marked eight documents as Exs.P1 to P8. In rebuttal, the Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW-1, and marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11266 MFA No. 20972 of 2013 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with cost vide judgment dated 17.11.2012 and held that, the petitioners are equally entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,18,000/- with 8% interest p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation and held that, the owner and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount, and the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest. The Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, filed this appeal. 8. A Notice was issued by this Court to the petitioners. Despite the service a notice, they remained unrepresented. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, the deceased was riding the motorcycle and he stepped into the shoes of the owner. The petitioners are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11266 MFA No. 20972 of 2013 entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi Vs. The United India Insurance Company and Another1. She submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 11.1. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability. 12. It is not in dispute that the deceased met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. As there is a contract between the owner of the motorcycle and the Insurance Company regarding the personal accident, however, the rider of the motorcycle steps into the shoes of the owner of the motorcycle. The 1 (2020) 2 SCC 550 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11266 MFA No. 20972 of 2013 Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi (supra), in paragraph No.5.8, held as under: 5.8. However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner-driver is entitled to a sum of Rs 1 lakh. Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs 1 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is an amendment to the 2nd Schedule and a fixed amount of Rs 5 lakh has been specified in case of death and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to Rs 5 lakh. The same cannot be accepted. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even the judgment and award was passed by the learned Tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the High Court in 10-5-2018 [United India Insurance Co. v. Ramkhiladi, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 3264] i.e. much prior to the amendment in the 2nd Schedule. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the 2nd Schedule. At the same time, as observed hereinabove, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs 1 lakh as per the terms of the contract of insurance, the driver being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11266 MFA No. 20972 of 2013 The Hon’ble Supreme Court granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as a compensation to the claimants. 13. The accident had occurred in 2007 and the impugned judgment and award was passed 2012 i.e., much prior to the amendment to the second schedule. The claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of an amendment to the second schedule. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is exorbitant. Considering the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi (supra), the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, this Court reduces the compensation from Rs.4,18,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. 14. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Appeal is allowed-in-part; ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 17.11.2012 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.194/2009 is hereby modified; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11266 MFA No. 20972 of 2013 iii. The petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation; iv. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation and the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; v. Amount in deposit, if any, along with Trial Court records, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith; vi. Excess amount in deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. vii. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1