- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15080 MFA No. 100012 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100012 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RAMA BHAVAN COMPLEX, KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY REGIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JAFAR ALLI SAHEB SHAIKH, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: MADEENA COLONY MANKI, HONAVAR TALUKA. 2. SMT. BIBI KHATIZA JAFAR ALLI SHAIKH, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MADEENA COLONY MANKI, HONAVAR TALUKA. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15080 MFA No. 100012 of 2015 3. ABDUL FAISAL S/O. JAFAR ALLI SHAIKH, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MADEENA COLONY MANKI, HONAVAR TALUKA. 4. SHASHIKIRAN B. (PO 11359914) M/S GURUDEV TRANSPORT, COMMERCE CENTRE, KULOOR, KAVOOR ROAD, MANGALORE-575013. (REGD OWNER OF TANKER BEARING NO.KA19/D3811) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3; NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.09.2014 PASSED BY BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, HONAVAR IN M.V.C. NO.118/13 WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15080 MFA No. 100012 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri Rajashekhar S. Arani learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Girish S. Hulmani learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Honavar in MVC 118 of 2013 dated 03.09.2014. 3. The first respondent being the father, the second respondent being the mother and the third respondent being the brother of the deceased Nadeem (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the deceased’ for brevity), who died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2013, filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and contending that the appellant and respondent No.4 herein should be held liable to pay the amount claimed. The tribunal giving a finding that the deceased contributed for the accident to occur and his contribution is to an extent of 25%, fastened 75% liability - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15080 MFA No. 100012 of 2015 against the appellant herein and respondent No.4 and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.5,94,750/- to respondents 1 to 3. 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Rajashekhar S. Arani submits that the appeal is filed on two grounds. Firstly, the deceased should be held solely responsible for the accident to occur. Secondly, the compensation granted is high and excessive. Arguing on the first ground learned counsel states that the accident occurred when the motorcycle of the deceased hit the tanker. However, the tribunal gave a finding that the driver of the tanker was also at fault which is improper. 5. Contradicting the submission thus made, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, Sri Girish S. Hulmani submits that basing on the contents of Ex.P1-Complaint, police investigated into the case and filed charge sheet as evident from the contents of Ex.P3 that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker. However, the tribunal fastened liability to an extent of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15080 MFA No. 100012 of 2015 25% upon the deceased for the cause of accident. Therefore the plea taken by the appellant is unjustifiable. 6. No material whatsoever is on record to establish that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased. Having discussed the merits of the case at length, the tribunal gave a categorical finding at para 14 of the impugned order that the contributory negligence of the tanker driver and the deceased who was the rider of the motorcycle has to be fixed at 75:25. The said finding is on sound reasoning and therefore needs no interference. 7. So far as the quantum of amount that is granted as compensation is concerned, when learned counsel for the appellant states that the amount awarded as compensation is excessive, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the compensation granted is on lower side. Admittedly no evidence whatsoever was produced by respondents 1 to 3 to show that the deceased was working as driver at Saudi Arabia at the relevant time. Also, respondents 1 to 3 have not challenged the findings of the tribunal for this long period of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15080 MFA No. 100012 of 2015 11 years from the date of accident. Equally this Court does not find any grounds to entertain the contention of the appellant that the compensation granted is exorbitant. Therefore this Court is of the view that the appeal lacks merits. Resultantly the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) Amount if any in deposit, be transmitted to concerned tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54