- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21349 OF 2013 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22728 OF 2013 IN MFA NO.21349/2013 BETWEEN: 1. VIJAY KUMAR S/O. SHIVAYOGAPPA SHABADI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. SACHIN S/O. SHIVAYOGAPPA SHABADI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NEEL P. PATEL AND SRI. S.V. SHANBAG, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. 1A. ANIL S/O. BASAPPA HALASUR, DECEASED-NOW REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES I.E. RESPONDENT NOS. 1(A) TO 1(B). ASHWINI W/O. ANIL HALASUR AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: PLOT NO.422, SECTOR NO.3, SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, SAROJA HANGARAKI Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.23 11:02:26 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 1B. DIST: BELAGAVI-591233. SHRI AHAN S/O. ANIL HALASUR AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/AT: PLOT NO.422, SECTOR NO.3, SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591233. (AMENDED VIDE ORDER ON I.A.NO.4/2024 DATED 27.11.2024) 2. GOPAL S/O. YALLAPPA KAPALESHWARI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: KHANGRALI, DIST: BELGAUM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BANGALORE DIVISIONAL OFFICER NO.1, III FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING, ANNEXE 72, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE SERVED TO R1A-R1B; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.52/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER M.A.C.T.-III BAGALKOT, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED FOR COMPENSATION U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT. IN MFA NO.22728/2013 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR S/O. SHIVAYOGAPPA SHABADI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. SACHIN S/O. SHIVAYOGAPPA SHABADI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT. …APPELLANTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 (BY SRI. NEEL P. PATEL AND SRI. S.V. SHANBAG, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. 1A. 1B. ANIL S/O. BASAPPA HALASUR, DECEASED-NOW REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES I.E. RESPONDENT NOS. 1(A) TO 1(B). ASHWINI W/O. ANIL HALASUR AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: PLOT NO.422, SECTOR NO.3, SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591233. SHRI AHAN S/O. ANIL HALASUR AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/AT: PLOT NO.422, SECTOR NO.3, SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591233. (AMENDED VIDE ORDER ON I.A NO.4 OF 2024 DATED 27.11.2024) 2. GOPAL S/O. YALLAPPA KAPALESHWARI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: KHANGRALI, DIST: BELGAUM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BANGALORE DIVISIONAL OFFICER NO.1, III FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING, ANNEXE 72, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE SERVED TO R1A-R1B; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.53/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 M.A.C.T.-III BAGALKOT, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED FOR COMPENSATION U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.) MFA No.21349/2013 and MFA No.22728/2013 are filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.52/2007 and MVC No.53/2007 dated 17.01.2013 on the file of M.A.C.T-3 Bagalkot. Said M.V.C. Petitions are dismissed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. 2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. Appellants-claimants in both MVCs claimed to be the legal representatives of deceased Dr.Shivayogi son of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 Basappa Shabadi and his wife Smt.Sunanda, who died in the motor vehicle accident. 4. The brief facts of the case of claimants are as follows:- On 30.12.2005, at about 19.30 hours, Dr. Shivayogi son of Basappa Shabadi was driving his Maruti 800 car bearing number KA-29-M-1487 with his wife Smt.Sunanda on Baglkot-Hungund road and when they were proceeding towards Kamatagi, about 3 km after passing Shirur village on Kamatagi road, a lorry bearing No.KA-22/B-3327 came from Bagalkot side towards Kamatagi and overtook the vehicle of the deceased with high speed and suddenly applied brakes of the lorry without giving any signal, that too without there being any obstacle on the road to stop the vehicle and the driver of the lorry stopped the vehicle in front of the vehicle of the deceased without maintaining safe distance in between two vehicles and driver of the lorry had not taken his vehicle on the left side of the road and stopped the vehicle all of a sudden in the middle of the road - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 without giving any signal and thereby the vehicle of deceased which was moving from rear side of the lorry dashed towards back of the lorry and caused the accident. As a result of the accident, both Dr.Shivayogi and his wife Smt.Sunanda, who were inmates of the car, sustained grievous head injuries and died on the spot itself. Petitioners being sons of both Dr.Shivayogi and Smt.Sunanda have filed two petitions in MVC No.52/2007 and 53/2007 claiming compensation. They further averred about the avocation and other details of the deceased i.e. Dr.Shivayogi, that he was hail and healthy and doctor by profession, proprietor of Vijaya Children Home, Bagalkot and working as Junior Lecturer in the Department of Pediatrics, BVV Sangha’s S.N. Medical College, Bagalkot and a well known Children Specialist and earning more than ₹.. 1,50,000/- from the hospital and also getting salary of ₹. 13,405/- per month. He was panel doctor of NWKRTC, Bagalkot depot and getting income of ₹.25,000/- per month. Doctor is having well established hospital building - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 and it was the only hospital in the district having all the specialties and deceased has trained so many junior doctors and was well known for his diagnosis and proper treatment. Petitioners were entirely depended upon the income of deceased and income of their father was the only income to the petitioners. They were the students studying at Medical College and lost their father and mother in the accident. They have lost sole bread earner of the family. Further, the petitioners are uncertain and suffered financial crisis. Petitioners spent ₹.1,00,000/- for funeral ceremonies and incidental ceremonies of their both parents and thus claimed ₹.72,00,000/- compensation under different heads. 5. In MVC No.53/2007 petitioners further averred that their mother was hale and healthy prior to the accident and she was supervising the Vijaya Children Home at Bagalkot. Petitioners were entirely depending upon her and they lost their parents and suffered the loss of mental shock and agony and loss of dependency, love and affection and spent ₹.1,00,000/- for funeral and incidental ceremonies - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 and thus claimed compensation of ₹. 31,00,000/- under different heads with interest rate 18% per annum. 6. After service of summons, respondent nos.1 and 2, remained absent and placed exparte. Respondent No.3 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement denying all the averments made in the petition and further contended that the driver of the car bearing number KA- 29/M-1487 has made contributory negligence and thus owner and insurer of said car are necessary parties. Hence petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. As per the investigation report, it was pointed out that photographs of cars were only taken. But no photographs of lorry bearing number KA-22/B-3327 were taken. There was involvement of another vehicle which was not validly insured. Therefore the present lorry was impleaded falsely. The petitions are filed belatedly after lapse of 2 years and no explanation is given to that effect. Hence both the petitions are hit by law of limitation. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 7. Based on these pleadings, learned trial judge has framed the following issues and additional issues in both cases:- “In MVC No.52/2007: 1. Whether petitioners prove that on 30.12.2005 the deceased Dr.Shivayogappa Shabadi along with his wife were proceeding in a Maruti 800 car bearing No.KA29-M-1487 driven by deceased Dr.Shivayogappa in a slow manner on Bagalkot-Hungund PWD road and when they proceeded towards Kamatagi about 3 Kms after Shirur village on Kamatagi road at about 07.30 PM, a lorry bearing No.KA22 B 3327 came from Bagalkot towards Kamatagi and overtook the vehicle of the deceased in a high speed and suddenly applied the brakes without giving any signals, and due to the said act of the lorry driver, deceased hit his car to the hind side of the truck and sustained accident, wherein the deceased has sustained multiple and grievous injuries on his head and succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot on that day? 2. Whether respondent No.3 proves that this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. owner and insurer of Maruti 800 car bearing No.KA29-M-1487? 3. Whether petitioners prove the age, occupation and income of the deceased as on the date of accident? 4. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom it is to be recovered? 5. What order or award? Additional Issue No.1 framed on 22.08.2011: 1. Whether the respondent No.3 proves that on 30.12.2005 at about 07.30 PM driver of the lorry parked the lorry No.KA22/ B 3327 on extreme left side of the road, with all parking lights, at the same time a car bearing No.KA29/M1487, driven by its driver, deceased - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 Shivayogappa drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the stationed lorry, from hind side, thereby deceased Shivayogappa himself was rash and negligent in driving his car? In MVC No.53/2007: 1. Whether petitioners prove that on 30.12.2005 the deceased Sunanda Shabadi along with her husband were proceeding in a Maruti 800 car bearing No.KA29-M-1487 driven by her husband Dr.Shivayogappa in a slow manner on Bagalkot-Hungund PWD road and when they proceeded towards Kamatagi about 3 Kms after Shirur village on Kamatagi road at about 07.30 PM, a lorry bearing No.KA22 B 3327 came from Bagalkot towards Kamatagi and overtook the vehicle of the deceased in a high speed and suddenly applied the brakes without giving any signals, and due to the said act of the lorry driver, deceased hit his car to the hind side of the truck and sustained accident, wherein the deceased has sustained multiple and grievous injuries on his head and succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot on that day? 2. Whether respondent No.3 proves that this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. owner and insurer of Maruti 800 car bearing No.KA29-M-14877? 3. Whether petitioners prove the age, occupation and income of the deceased as on the date of accident? 4. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom it is to be recovered? 5. What order or award? Additional Issue No.1 framed on 22.08.2011:” 1. Whether the respondent No.3 proves that on 30.12.2005 at about 07.30 PM driver of the lorry parked the lorry No.KA22/ B 3327 on extreme left side of the road, with all parking lights, at the same time a car bearing No.KA29/M1487, driven by its driver, deceased - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 Shivayogappa drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the stationed lorry, from hind side, thereby deceased Shivayogappa himself was rash and negligent in driving his car? 8. On behalf of petitioners, first petitioner was examined as PW1, examined three witnesses as PW2 to PW4, got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.41 and closed their side. On behalf of respondents, five witnesses were examined as RW1 to RW5, got marked exhibits R.1 to R.13 and closed their side. 9. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal has passed the common judgment dismissing the claim petition holding that claimants failed to prove that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck bearing number No.KA- 22/B-3327, the accident happened. 10. Aggrieved by said common judgment and awards, the claimants-appellants have preferred the present appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of both sides. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 12. Learned counsel for appellants Sri S.V. Shanbagh submitted his arguments that the accident happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck bearing No KA-22/B-3327, which came from Bagalkot side towards Kamatagi and overtook the car in which deceased Dr.Shivayogi was driving and his wife Smt. Sunanda was its inmate and because of this, both inmates of car died at the spot. He further contended that the manner in which accident happened itself proves that the accident happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. Merely because truck driver was acquitted in a criminal case, it cannot be said that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the said lorry or truck in causing the accident. Only preponderance of probabilities can be invoked in case of present nature and strict proof of beyond reasonable doubt is not applicable to claim petitions. Hence, the acquittal of accused in criminal case alone cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim petition of petitioners. However, the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 Tribunal has overlooked this point of law and wrongly dismissed the petitions. Hence, prayed for allowing both the appeals. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, Sri.C.V.Angadi submitted his arguments that there was oral evidence before Criminal Court which is against the evidence produced in MVC petitions. The eyewitness who was coming in a motorcycle has not even stated the registration number of his own motorcycle and it shows that he is a manipulated witness and the IMV report reveals that back side of the truck had sustained damages and thus considering these facts, rightly the Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions. Hence, prayed for dismissal of appeals with costs throughout. 14. From the above facts, the points that arise for consideration are:- 1) Whether the appellants/claimants prove that the tribunal erred in holding that the accident happened - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 solely on the negligence of the car driver Dr.Shivayogi and dismissed the petition? 2) Whether interference on the said judgment and award is required? 3) What order? 15. Our findings on these points are as under 1. In affirmative; 2. In affirmative; 3. for the following reasons:- Point Nos.1 and 2 : These points are considered together as they require common discussion. The facts of the case in this case are that on 30.12.2005, at about 19.30 hours, Maruti 800 car bearing number KA-29-M-1487 and a lorry bearing No.KA-22/B-3327 met with an accident on Kamatagi road about 3 km and due to its impact, the driver of the car-Dr.Shivayogi and his wife Smt.Sunanda who was inmate of the car have sustained grievous head injuries and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 died at the spot. Petitioners being sons of both Dr.Shivayogi and Smt.Sunanda have filed two petitions in MVC No.52/2007 and 53/2007 and claimed compensation. 16. Respondent No.3-insurer of the lorry contested both petitions on the ground that the driver of the car bearing number KA-29/M-1487 has made contributory negligence and thus owner and insurer of said car are necessary parties. Hence petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and further contended there was involvement of another vehicle which was not validly insured. Therefore the present lorry was impleaded falsely. The petitions are filed belatedly after lapse of 2 years and no explanation is given to that effect. Hence both the petitions are hit by law of limitation. 17. After verifying the materials on record, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck and thus dismissed the petition. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 18. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the appellants- claimants have preferred these appeals. 19. Learned counsels for appellants Sri.Neel P. Patel and Sri.S.V.Shanbag in both these appeals submit their arguments that the charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the bus and thus, the accident happened mainly because of negligence of the driver of the bus, which is established before the tribunal. However, the tribunal has given importance to acquittal of the bus driver in criminal case and gave much importance to the minor discrepancies. He also made submission regarding the income and profession of the deceased and other facts and hence, prayed for allowing the appeals. 20. Learned counsel for respondent-insurer Sri.S.V.Shanbag in both these appeals submits his arguments that the appellants-claimants have not established the negligence on the part of driver of the truck. The tribunal has discussed these facts in detail and rightly - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 dismissed the claim petitions. Hence, prayed for dismissal of both the appeals. 21. We have carefully verified the pleadings, documents and evidence produced before tribunal and also the finding of the tribunal. The tribunal gave much importance to acquittal of the driver in criminal case and also the cross examination of eye witness and came to the conclusion that the accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car. However, it is to be noted here that in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A.No. of 2025 arising out of SLP(C) No.10351/2019 dated 25.02.2025 wherein parties are Ranjeet and another Vs. Abdul Kayam NEB and another has held that “it is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye witnesses are not examined that will not be fatal to prove - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver”. 22. Even in the present case also admittedly, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the truck and not against the car driver. The tribunal has given much importance to the cross-examination of eye witnesses that it was not possible for them to see the accident. Even in the absence of eye witnesses, the manner in which the accident happened is to be looked into to decide on whose negligence, the accident happened. 23. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and also the pleading in the claim petition would categorically indicate that the lorry driver overtook the car and suddenly took left and applied brake. Ex.P.4-Motor Vehicle Accident Report indicates that rear right side indicator light of the lorry was damaged due to the impact, and also rear chassis cross member of the of the lorry was damaged and pushed inwards. Ex.P.4 is also indicates damage caused to the car due to impact of the accident. The manner in which the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 accident has taken place, which could be seen from the evidence on record, it cannot be concluded that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the car. The conclusion of the Tribunal is contrary to the material on record. 24. In the instant case, the car was completely damaged. As far as the truck is concerned, its rear right side indicator light was damaged and rear chassis cross number damaged and pushed inwards due to impact and these things establish that there could be contributory negligence even on the part of the driver of the truck also in causing the accident. Without verifying the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the truck, and without verifying the proportion of the contributory negligence on the part of the car driver, the tribunal has dismissed the case which is not proper. Hence, it is appropriate to remit the matter to Tribunal to decide the contributory negligence and to determine the compensation. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 25. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative. 26. Point No.3- In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1) Appeals are allowed. 2) Judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.52/2007 and MVC Nos.53/2007 dated 17.01.2013 passed by MACT No.III, Bagalkot is set aside. 3) The matters are remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce their respective evidence. 4) The parties to appear before the Tribunal on 20.11.2025 without awaiting further notice from the Court. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13644-DB MFA No. 21349 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22728 of 2013 5) Registry to transmit the trial Court records to the Tribunal. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE HMB CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 27