- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12042 MFA No. 23226 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23226 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RENUKA W/O DILEEP PAWAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: CLERK INAGRIL INSTITUTE, R/O: KUSTAGI, TQ: KUSTAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYA, ADV) AND: 1. HANUMANTH S/O LAXMAN WADDER, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF BUS, KA-28/8038, R/O: HALAGERI, TQ: BADAMI, DISTA: BAGALKOT. 2. BASAVALINGAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA TALIKOTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF BUS NO.KA-28/8038, R/O: SRI. GIRI TRAVELS, APMC YARD, BIJAPUR. 3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ARYA IDIGA HOSTEL COMPLEX, MOTI CIRCLE, BALLARI, POLICY NO.721801/31/01/03349 VALID UPTO 24/01/2002 TO 23/01/2003. 4. V. VIJAYAN S/O VELLI GOUNDER, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: LORRY DRIVER, NO.KA-01/A5592, R/O: AADIMANAKOTTI, ANNA STREET, 2/231 DISTZ: DHARMAPURI (TAMIL NADU) 5. V. MINIVANNAN S/O VENKATACHALAM GOUNDER, AGE: 40 YEARS, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12042 MFA No. 23226 of 2013 OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BERING, NO.KA-01/A5592, R/O: 1/42, PALLEKODA, GHANAKADU, RATTAPATTI, TQ: SHINGDI, DIST: SELVAM …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S TELI, ADV FOR R1, SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADV FOR R3, APPEAL AGAINST R4 IS ABATED AND APPEAL AGAINST R2 & R5 STANDS DISMISSED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 26-02-2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.260/2003 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, YALBURGA AT KUSTAGI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER : CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 26.02.2010 passed in MVC No.260/2003 by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12042 MFA No. 23226 of 2013 learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Additional MACT, Yalburga, at Kustagi. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 26.09.2022, the petitioner was traveling in a bus bearing registration No.KA-28/8038 from Hospet. When the bus was near Chinnarpur area, a lorry was parked on the left side of the road. The driver of the bus drove the bus at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the parked lorry. As a result, the petitioner sustained injuries and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. The Owner of the bus, Insurance company, and the Lorry Driver, appeared through counsel, and owner of the bus and the insurance company have filed a statement of objections. The driver of the bus and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12042 MFA No. 23226 of 2013 owner of the lorry, despite the service of notice, failed to appear before the Tribunal; hence, were placed ex parte. 5. The owner of the bus filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the vehicle had a valid permit and the driver of the vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Therefore, the insurance company has to indemnify him. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the Bus. 6. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the driver of the Bus vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12042 MFA No. 23226 of 2013 7. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 8. The petitioner, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW.1, and marked 68 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-68. Conversely, the respondents neither led an oral nor produced any documentary evidence. 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 26.02.2010 and awarded a compensation of Rs.56,640/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization and dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company. Respondent No.2 and 5 before the tribunal i.e., the owner of the bus and the owner of the lorry were directed to deposit the compensation. The claim petition was also dismissed against the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-28/8038 and against - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12042 MFA No. 23226 of 2013 the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA- 01/A5592. 10. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and on the lower side. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that as of the date of the accident, the offending vehicle/Bus had no valid policy. The Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim petition against respondent No.2 before the tribunal i.e., the owner of the bus bearing registration No.KA-28/8038 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12042 MFA No. 23226 of 2013 and the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.KA- 01/A-5592 and directed them to deposit 50% each of the compensation amount and dismissed the claim petition against the Insurance Company on the ground that, as of the date of the accident, the vehicle was not insured and the insurance policy was not valid. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the claim petition. 14. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 15. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. Reg. quantum of compensation 16. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident. The petitioner, to prove that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability, has not examined a doctor. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12042 MFA No. 23226 of 2013 17. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of PW.1 and the wound certificate which is marked at Ex.P6, has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.56,640/- and has rightly dismissed the claim petition against the Insurance Company on the ground that the policy was not valid as of the date of the accident. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the point is answered accordingly. 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. 2. The impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is hereby confirmed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9