- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5732-DB MFA No. 202353 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202353 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BY THE 1ST FLOOR, DR. JAWALI COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET, KALABURAGI, NOW THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SARITA W/O LATE RAJU, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. PAVIT S/O LATE RAJU, AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. PRAJWAL S/O LATE RAJU, AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. RAHITH S/O LATE RAJU, AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, (PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINOR, U/G OF SMT. SARITA). Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5732-DB MFA No. 202353 of 2024 5. JIJABAI W/O BHOJU, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 6. BHOJU S/O KHIRU, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL R/O OF SIDDAPUR TANDA CHIMMANCHOD VILLAGE, TQ. CHINCHOLI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 306. 7. KHADEER PASHA S/O ALLAUDDIN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE PIAGGIO APE AUTO BEARING NO. KA-32/C-0457, R/O. SALLE BIRNALLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI, DIST. KALABURAGI, DIED BY HIS LRS, 7A) PARVEEN W/O LATE KHADEER PASHA, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SALLE BIRNALLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 306. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R1, R5 AND R6; (R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS MFA FILED U/S. 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CALL FOR THE TRAIL COURT RECORDS AND HEAR THE PARTIES AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 02.03.2024 AND AWARD DATED 12.03.2024 IN MVC NO.755/2022. BEFORE IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT AT CHINCHOLI. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5732-DB MFA No. 202353 of 2024 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, calling in question, the judgment and award dated 02.03.2024 in MVC No.755/2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and M.A.C.T, at Chincholi on the contributory negligence. 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, death of deceased Raju S/o. Bhoju Chavan are not in dispute. The only dispute is liability to pay the compensation i.e., the Tribunal has failed to fasten the liability i.e., contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the deceased. 3. Heard Sri.Sharanabasappa.M.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5732-DB MFA No. 202353 of 2024 and Sri.Harshavardhan.R.Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6. The notice to respondent Nos.7(a) returned with postal shara as ‘refused’ and the same is taken as held sufficient vide order dated 10.09.2025. 4. Sri.Sharanabasappa.M.Patil with all vehemence submitted that as per the spot sketch the deceased was proceeding from Chimmanchod towards Siddapur and if at all there were to be a head-on collision between the motorcycle and auto-rickshaw, there would have been damage to the auto-rickshaw, but there is no damage found on the auto-rickshaw either in the front side nor on the right side of the auto-rickshaw. As such, the Tribunal has failed to consider the same, as per the Police records, there are two eyewitnesses who have not been examined by the claimant, except PW.1, who is not the eyewitness to the incident. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has failed to consider the contributory negligence and saddle the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5732-DB MFA No. 202353 of 2024 who was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal. 5. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.Harshavardhan R.Malipatil with all vehemence submitted that as per the Police records the case is registered against the driver of the Piaggion APE auto-rickshaw, who was proceeding from Salakara Basantpura came in Maharashtra and collided with the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding at the time of accident. The Police registered the case only against the driver of the auto rickshaw, the Police have concluded the investigation filed charge sheet only against the driver of the auto rickshaw under Section 279, 304(A) of IPC r/w Section 187 of IMV Act, 1988. So far as the spot sketch is concerned, as per the spot sketch, the accident happened on the extreme right side of the road, which clearly shows that the driver of the auto rickshaw was driving the said auto in a rash and negligent manner moving on the extreme right side collided with the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5732-DB MFA No. 202353 of 2024 motorcycle resulting in death of rider of the motorcycle. In these circumstances, the grounds urged by the appellant – Insurance Company have no legs to stand accordingly and requires to be rejected. So far as the eye witnesses are concerned, the spot sketch clearly shows the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the auto rickshaw, as such there is no need for any other witnesses to substantiate the same that apart, the driver of the auto rickshaw has not challenged the charge sheet filed against him. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has properly considered the entire material and fastened the liability on the appellant – Insurance Company holding that the driver of the auto rickshaw driven in the rash and negligent manner causing the accident and answered the issue on that in ‘Affirmative’ against the driver of the auto rickshaw. In these circumstances, and sought to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers as well as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5732-DB MFA No. 202353 of 2024 Trial Could record. The only point that would arise for our consideration is; “Whether the appellant – Insurance Company has made out any case to fasten the liability i.e., contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle?” 7. Our answer to the above point for consideration is in ‘negative’ for the following; R E A S O N As could be seen from the spot sketch at Ex.P.6, it is the driver of the auto rickshaw who was driving on the extreme right side crossing the limits of usage of the road and cause for the accident. In these circumstances, nothing much is required to hold that it is the driver of the auto-rickshaw responsible for the accident. The Tribunal after considering the entire material on record appropriately answered the issue No.1 holding that the driver of the auto-rickshaw was driving in a very rash and negligent manner and responsible for the accident. In these circumstances, there is no force in the argument - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5732-DB MFA No. 202353 of 2024 advanced by the appellant – Insurance Company, that the deceased has also contributed negligence towards the accident. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, we pass the following; O R D E R (i) The appeal sans merit and accordingly, stands dismissed. (ii) The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement forthwith. (iii) The appellant - Insurance Company shall deposite the balance compensation along with interest, as ordered by the trbunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv) In all other aspects, the order of the Tribunal is kept intact. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5732-DB MFA No. 202353 of 2024 v) Registry is directed to transmit the records within two weeks form the date of release of this order, without causing any further delay. vi) No order as to cost. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT: AK