- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12043 MFA No. 101416 of 2017 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. 101416 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SADASHIV BHARMAPPA DALAVAI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HALSHIRUGUR, POST: SHIRUGUR, TAL: RAIBAG-591317, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. GEETHA K M @ PAWAR, ADV) AND: 1. SADANAND KALLAPPA KARLEKAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: ARJUNWAD, TAL: RAIBAG. NOW AT: PLOT NO. 23, CTS NO. 45/2, SANGAMESHWAR NAGAR, BELAGAVI. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, MAHAVEER CHAMBERS, ASHOK NAGAR, NIPPANI, REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJESH B. RAJANAL, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.643/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,00,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12043 MFA No. 101416 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT 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 owner of the offending vehicle, challenging the judgment and award dated 10.02.2017 passed in MVC No.643/2015 by the IV Additional District and Additional MACT, Belagavi. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 12.12.2014 at about 11.00 a.m, in the garden land of Sathyappa Honnappa Kerur on Chinchali-Morab road, the driver of the offending Truck bearing registration No.KA-23- B-7453 owned by the owner-Sadashiv Bharmappa Dalvani and insured by the insurer i.e., the National Insurance company limited, took reverse of the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner, who was working in the said garden land. As a result, he has sustained grievous injuries. Thus, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12043 MFA No. 101416 of 2017 the ground of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 3. Notice was issued to the owner. However, despite service of notice, he remained unrepresented and he was placed ex parte by the Tribunal. 4. Insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioner to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined the doctor as PW.2 and marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to 13. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company has not examined any oral or documentary evidence. The Tribunal after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12043 MFA No. 101416 of 2017 against the owner and awarded the compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% and directed the owner of the offending vehicle to deposit the compensation amount and dismissed the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 7. The owner of the offending vehicle aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.643/2015, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle submits that the owner has not received notice from the Tribunal and he was not aware about the filing of claim petition by the petitioner. She also submits that the driver had a valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident and the policy was valid. The said aspect was not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12043 MFA No. 101416 of 2017 properly considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company solely on the ground that the vehicle was not used in a public place and used in the land of Satyappa Honnappa Kerur. Further, she submits that the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The point that would arises for consideration is regarding the liability. 13. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a claim petition claiming the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12043 MFA No. 101416 of 2017 compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. Notice was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle. However, he was unrepresented before the Tribunal, hence, was placed exparte. It is contended that notice was not served on the owner of the vehicle and it is contended that as of the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid and effective driving license and the policy was valid. The said aspect was not properly considered by the Tribunal. 14. Further, the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company is only on the ground that the vehicle was not used in the public place. The said aspect is not a ground to dismiss a claim petition. The owner of the offending vehicle had no opportunity to put forth his case, as the compensation was awarded in the absence of the owner of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12043 MFA No. 101416 of 2017 the offending vehicle by the Tribunal. If one opportunity is provided to the owner of the vehicle to participate in the proceedings, no injustice would cause to the petitioner. The judgment passed by the Tribunal is an ex parte judgment. Hence, the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. 15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I. The Miscellaneous First appeal is allowed. II. The judgment and award dated 10.02.2017 passed in MVC No.643/2015 by the IV Additional District and Additional MACT, Belagavi, is hereby set aside. III. The claim petition in MVC No.643/2015 is restored to its original file. IV. This court has not made any adjudication on merits in issue. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12043 MFA No. 101416 of 2017 V. Liberty is reserved to the owner of the vehicle to file a statement of objections within 15 days from the date of appearance, failing which, the owner is not entitled for the benefit of this order. VI. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.10.2025, without awaiting any further notice. VII. The office is directed to transmit records to the Tribunal. VIII. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12