- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26980 MFA No. 8451 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8451 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. REP. BY ITS MANAGER SRI K.N.SURESH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.C. SEETHA RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. H.S. CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, R/AT HULIGEREPURA, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 2. SRI. KEMPARAJU B.K. S/O KEMPEGOWDA, R/AT BORAPURA VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT (OWNER OF AUTORIKSHAW NO.KA.05/D-5568) …RESPONDENTS (R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 26.03.2021, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26980 MFA No. 8451 of 2015 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.145/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDE AND MACT, MADDUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,54,400/- WITH INTEREST @ 7% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurer (respondent No.2) against the judgment and award dated 01st July 2015 in MVC No.145/2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Maddur (for short `Tribunal'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 29.09.2012 at about 11.30 a.m., petitioner-claimant was going towards K.M.Doddi on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02-Q-7441 and when he reached near Chatradahosahalli Gate, he met with an accident due to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26980 MFA No. 8451 of 2015 rash and negligent driving of Goods Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-05/D-5568 by its driver. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous head injury. He took treatment and he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.9,91,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of offending Goods Autorickshaw. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and respondent No.2 contended before the Tribunal that said accident did not occur due to negligence of the driver of the goods Autorickshaw and also denied the contents of the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues for its determination. 6. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 & 2 and examined the doctor as C.W.2. Claimant got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26980 MFA No. 8451 of 2015 P10 and Exs.C1 to C3. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as R.W.1 and also marked Exs.R1 to R6. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties held that accident occured due to rash and negligent driving of the Autorickshaw as well as riding of the motor cycle by the claimant and apportioned the contributory negligence in the ratio of 50:50 and awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,54,400/-. The same is challenged in the present appeal. 8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. Though notice was served, respondents have not appeared. 9. Undisputedly, criminal case was registered against the claimant. FIR was also registered against the driver of the goods Autorickshaw. The matter was investigated and charge sheet was filed as per Ex.P2 against the claimant. The concerned investigating officer in detail mentioned that the accident occurred due to rash - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26980 MFA No. 8451 of 2015 and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the claimant, who did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The owner of the said vehicle was charge- sheeted as Accused No.3. The annexures to the charge sheet were produced as Exhibits P1 to P7. All these documents show that claimant himself was negligent. These documents were marked by the claimant. He has not challenged the charge sheet filed against him before an appropriate forum, nor has he had it set aside. Instead, he has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the accident occurred due to his own negligence, he is not entitled to claim compensation from the owner or insurer of the opposite vehicle. 10. Looking into the contents of the charge sheet and enclosures, the involvement of the said goods Autorickshaw is also doubtful. According to the petition averments, the goods Autorickshaw came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motor cycle. In such an event, it is highly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26980 MFA No. 8451 of 2015 probable that both vehicles would have sustained damage. Motor vehicle inspection report of the said goods Autorickshaw produced at Ex.P6 reveals that there were no visible damages to the said Autorickshaw. 11. Spot Mahazar of the accident is produced as Ex.R1 and Seizure Mahazar of the motor cycle is produced as Ex.R3. Ex.R3 reveals that there was no damage to both the sides of the motor cycle. If the speeding autorickshaw had hit the motorcycle, there would evidently have been damage to the motorcycle as well. Therefore, contents of the claim petition are not supported by the charge sheet and its enclosures. 12. The claimant in his evidence has stated that the autorickshaw came from the back side and hit his motor cycle. A total version is changed. Even P.W.2 who has lodged the complaint has stated that the autorickshaw came from the behind and hit the motorcycle. If that was the case, then there should be damage to the backside of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26980 MFA No. 8451 of 2015 the motor cycle. Therefore, evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2 are not reliable. 13. It is a summary trial proceeding where the Court cannot declare that charge sheet and enclosures filed by the police are totally incorrect. If there is reliable evidence, then there are chances of deviation to decide the negligence of rider of the motor cycle or driver of the Autorickshaw. 14. In the present case, documents produced by the claimants are totally against his contentions. The Tribunal has not considered them properly. In para Nos.12 and 14 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has assigned its own reasons for holding that accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the rider of the motor cycle as well as driver of the Autorickshaw. The said reasons are not supported by any material evidence placed on record. Therefore, it is not tenable. Claimant has utterly failed to prove the involvement of the goods Autorickshaw in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26980 MFA No. 8451 of 2015 causing the accident and sustaining injury. On the contrary, charge sheet and its enclosures clearly reveal that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant while riding the motor cycle without driving licence. Therefore, findings of the Tribunal call for interference. 15. When the claim petition requires to be dismissed, the question of calculation of the compensation or its correctness need not be considered. 16. For the aforesaid discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed; (ii) The judgment and award dated 01st July 2015 passed in MVC No.145/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Maddur, is set aside. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26980 MFA No. 8451 of 2015 (iii) The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 is dismissed. iv) Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. v) Whatever the amount deposited by the Insurer- appellant shall be refunded to it. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 CT: BHK