Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 65349 (KAR)

GANAPATI S/O KRISHNA BHAT v. PRABHAKAR R CHAVAN

MFA/25405/2012 · 2025-09-18

Ashok S Kinagi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12570 MFA No. 25405 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 25406 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25405 OF 2012 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25406 OF 2012 IN MFA NO.25405/2012 BETWEEN: GANAPATI S/O. KRISHNA BHAT, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE, R/O: TOWNSHIP (KASHIMSAB’S HOUSE) A/P. DANDELI, TAL: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRABHAKAR R. CHAVAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BAMMANAGI, PRADHANA JOIDA TALUKA, UTTARKANNDA. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. SRINIVAS COMPLEX, MARKET DHARWAD-581325. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAME BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK COURT-III, DHARWAD MVC NO.226/2011, DATED 13.09.2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12570 MFA No. 25405 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 25406 of 2012 IN MFA NO.25406/2012 BETWEEN: SMT. SANDHYA W/O. GANAPATI BHAT, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: TUITION CLASS, AND TAILORING, R/O: TOWNSHIP (KASHIMSAB’S HOUSE), A/P. DANDELI, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRABHAKAR R. CHAVAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BAMMANAGI, PRADHANA JOIDA TALUKA, UTTARA KANNADA. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. SRINIVAS COMPLEX, MARKET, DHARWAD-581325. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2;R1-SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAME BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK COURT-III, DHARWAD IN MVC NO.227/2011, DATED 13.09.2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12570 MFA No. 25405 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 25406 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals are filed by the petitioners, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Fast Track Court, Dharwad (hereinafter the “Tribunal”) in the common judgment and awards dated 13.09.2012 passed in MVC Nos.226/2011 and 227/2011. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: The petitioner in MVC No.226/2011 is the husband of the petitioner in MVC No.227/2011. On 21.01.2011, the petitioners were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-31/L-1643. When they came near the accident spot, at that time, a jeep bearing registration No.KA.31/M.0818 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner in MVC No.226/2011. As a result, the petitioners have sustained injuries. The police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner in MVC No.226/2011 and the driver of the offending vehicle. The jeep was insured with the 2nd respondent-insurance - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12570 MFA No. 25405 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 25406 of 2012 company. As of the date of the accident, the driver was possessing a valid and effective driving license. Hence, prays to allow the claim petitions. 3. Notice was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle. Despite service of notice, he remained unrepresented and was placed exparte. 4. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the petitioner in MVC No.226/2011 has contributed for the cause of the accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the jeep. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the insurance company. 5. The Tribunal clubbed both the claim petitions and based on the pleadings of the parties, framed separate issues. 6. The petitioners to substantiate their case, the petitioner in MVC No.226/2011 was examined as PW.1, the petitioner in MVC No.227/2011 was examined as PW.2, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12570 MFA No. 25405 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 25406 of 2012 examined two witnesses as PWs.3 and 4 and the petitioner in MVC No. 226/2011 marked 25 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-25 and the petitioner in MVC No.227/2011 marked Exs.P-26 to P- 51. In rebuttal, the officer of the insurance company was examined as RW.1 and marked 5 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-5. 7. The Tribunal after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- in MVC No.226/2011 after deducting 50% of the compensation for the contributory negligence and Rs.45,200/- in MVC No.227/2011 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petitions till realization. 8. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and the liability filed these appeals. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the insurance company. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12570 MFA No. 25405 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 25406 of 2012 10. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the charge sheet is filed against the rider of the motorcycle but the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for fastening the liability on the rider of the motorcycle to an extent of 50%. He submits that the driver of the jeep was more aggressive than the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, 50% liability fastened on the rider of the motorcycle i.e. the petitioner in MVC No.226/2011 is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds prays to allow the appeals. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company supported the impugned judgment and award and submits that the rider of the motor cycle has equally contributed for the cause of the accident and the Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability of 50% on the rider of the motorcycle. She submits that the judgment and awards passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for interference. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the appeals. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12570 MFA No. 25405 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 25406 of 2012 13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The points that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation. 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the petitioners having sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. 16. The petitioners have produced the charge sheet marked as Ex.P-1 which discloses that the rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the jeep in question have contributed for the cause of the accident. The petitioner in MVC No.226/2011 filed a private complaint. The Police after investigation filed ‘B’ report. From the perusal of the chargesheet it discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the jeep. Now what is to be considered is, who is more aggressive in contributing to the accident. The vehicles involved in the accident is the motorcycle and a jeep. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12570 MFA No. 25405 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 25406 of 2012 said aspect was not considered by the Tribunal and has fastened the liability on the rider of the motorcycle to an extent of 50%. Considering the charge sheet, this Court is of the opinion that the liability fastened on the rider of the motorcycle to an extent of 50% is on the higher side. This Court re-assess the liability to the extent of 65% on the driver of the jeep and 35% against the rider motorcycle. Reg. the quantum of the compensation: 17. Though the doctor is of the opinion that the petitioners have sustained the injury to the extent of 18% and 35% to the lower limb respectively in MVC Nos.226/2011 and 227/2011, the Trial Court has awarded the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs.45,200/-, which is on the lower side. Hence, this court awards the global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12570 MFA No. 25405 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 25406 of 2012 ORDER i. The appeals are allowed. The judgment and awards dated 13.09.2012 passed in MVC Nos.226/2011 and 227/2011 by the Fast Track Court, Dharwad, are modified. ii. The petitioner in MVC No.226/2011 is entitled for global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and the petitioner in MVC No.227/2011 is entitled for global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. iii. The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv. The driver of the jeep is liable to pay the compensation to the extent of 65% and the rider of the motorcycle is liable to pay compensation to the extent of 35% Draw the award accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT:ANB Page No.9 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 12.12.2025.