- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797 MFA No. 101645 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101645 OF 2016 (MV-) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101646 OF 2016 IN MFA NO. 101645 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PARVATHI NAGARA, BALLARI REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX IIND FLOOR, STATION ROAD, HUBBALLI REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. S KOLIWAD, ADV) AND: 1. K. GANGADHARA S/O K. KOTRESHI AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. PAINTER R/O. TOOLAHALLI VILLAGE KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI DIST. 2. F.D. KAREEM S/O D. HUSAIN SAB AGE: 47, OCCU. DRIVER OF MAXI PICK UP VAN R/O AZAD NAGARA, KUDLIGI TOWN TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. BALLARI. 3. PARUSURAM S/O DEVENDRAPPA AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCU. BUSINESS R/O NEAR RAMALINGESHWAR TEMPLE JAVALI STREET, KOTTUR TOWN TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. BALLARI (OWNER OF MAXI PICKUP BEARING NO.KA-35/A-1460). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VEERESH H.M, ADV FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT & R3 IS SERVED) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.17 15:46:04 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797 MFA No. 101645 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:10.12.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.33/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -VI AT KUDLIGI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,35,907/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 101646 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., PARVATHI NAGARA BALLARI REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX IIND FLOOR, STATION ROAD, HUBBALLI REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.S KOLIWAD, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. PUNEETHA S/O NAGALINGAPPA AGE:30 YEARS, OCC. NILL R/O. TOOLAHALLI VILLAGE KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI DIST. 2. SMT. VANI D/O NAGALINGAPPA AND W/O RUDRAMUNI, AGE:28 YEARS, OCC. NILL, R/O. SIDDANAMUTT CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST NOW R/AT. R/O. TOOLAHALLI VILLAGE KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI DIST. 3. F.D. KAREEM S/O D. HUSAIN SAB AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCU. DRIVER OF MAXI PICK UP VAN, R/O AZAD NAGARA, KUDLIGI TOWN TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. BALLARI. 4. PARUSURAM S/O DEVENDRAPPA AGE:47 YEARS, OCCU. BUSINESS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797 MFA No. 101645 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016 R/O NEAR RAMALINGESHWAR TEMPLE JAVALI STREET, KOTTUR TOWN TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. BALLARI (OWNER OF MAXI PICK UP BEARING NO.KA-35/A-1460) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, ADV FOR SRI. RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADV FOR R1 & R2 NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT & R4 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.34/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VI, KUDLIGI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,08,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) These Appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 10.12.2015 passed in MVC Nos.33 and 34 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, cum Member VI-MACT, Kudligi. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797 MFA No. 101645 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 22.05.2013, at about 8.30 p.m., the petitioner and his friend were travelling in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-35/H-6379 from Toolahalli to Sokke for painting work. When they came near the Toolahalli Sokke road, at about 9.00 p.m, the driver of the Maxi Pickup Goods Van bearing Reg.No.KA-35/A-1460, drove the same at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioners sustained the grievous injuries and his friend (i.e, the deceased in MVC No. 34/2014) succumbed to the injuries at spot, and they were shifted to the hospital. The petitioner has spent a huge amount towards the medical and other expenses. Hence, they filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797 MFA No. 101645 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016 4. The driver and the owner of the offending vehicle remained unrepresented, and have been placed ex-parte. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that two vehicles are involved in the accident, and owner and Insurance Company of the motorcycle were not made as parties to the claim petition, and they are the necessary parties. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. The rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the Maxi cab did not possess a valid and effective driving license. There is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, examined the petitioner in MVC NO. 33/2014 P.W.1 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797 MFA No. 101645 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016 petitioner No. 1 in MVC NO. 34/2014 as PW- 2, examined the doctor as P.W.3, and marked 21 documents as Exs.P1 to P21. Conversely, on the other hand, an official of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1, and marked 1 document as Ex.R1. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part vide judgment dated 10.12.2015 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,35,907/- to the petitioner in MVC No.33/2014 and Rs.7,08,000/- in MVC No.34/2014 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The owner, driver and insurance company were held liable jointly and severally and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners in both the claim petitions. 9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.33 and 34 of 2014, filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797 MFA No. 101645 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that after the accident, the petitioners were shifted to the Government Hospital, Jagalur, and they have stated about the occurrence of the accident before the Doctor. As per the Ex.P7-wound certificate, it discloses that on 22.05.2013 at 8.30 p.m. near Toolahalli, the petitioners were hit the Bolero and as per Ex.P-21-entire case sheet issued by Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, its history discloses that the injured was a pillion rider on a bike hit by Bolaro vehicle at 8.30 p.m. on 22.05.2013. On the same day, the complaint was lodged against an unknown driver and vehicle in crime No.76/2013. He submits that after eight days, the petitioner and owner of the vehicle having colluded with the police, fixed the insured vehicle. Later on, the vehicle was seized on 30.05.2013, and the vehicle was inspected on 01.06.2013, and the driver was also arrested - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797 MFA No. 101645 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016 on 30.05.2013. He submits that the Tribunal has not considered the material evidence, and history of the medical records. He also submits that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. He submits that the Tribunal, without considering these material aspects awarded the compensation. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeals. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries and the deceased in MVC NO. 34/2014 succumbed to the injuries. He submits that a complaint was lodged against an unknown vehicle and driver. The police after investigation have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. He submits that neither the owner nor the Insurance Company have challenged the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. He submits that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797 MFA No. 101645 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016 any interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeals. 13. Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point, that would arise for my consideration is regarding the liability. Regarding Liability: 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, the petitioners sustained the injuries, and the deceased in MVC NO. 34/2014 succumbed to the injuries. As of the date of the accident, the petitioners have sustained grievous injuries, and they are not in a position to disclose the number of the offending vehicle. The complaint was lodged against an unknown vehicle and the driver. The police after the investigation filed a charge sheet at EX. P-3, showing that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797 MFA No. 101645 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016 Tribunal based on the charge sheet produced by the petitioners has rightly recorded its finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 16. The Insurance Company contended that after the accident, the petitioners were shifted to the Government Hospital, Jagalur, and they have stated about the occurrence of the accident before the Doctor. As per Ex.P7- wound certificate, its history discloses that on 22.05.2013 at 8.30 p.m. near Toolahalli, the petitioners were hit by the Bolero and Ex.P21-entire case sheet issued by Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, its history, discloses that injured was a pillion rider on a bike hit by Bolaro vehicle at 8.30 p.m. on 22.05.2013. Although, there is a discrepancy regarding the nature of the motorcycle, but ultimately, the police after investigation filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. Further, the Insurance Company has not examined any eyewitness to prove that the accident had not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797 MFA No. 101645 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016 driver of the offending vehicle. The medical records produced by the petitioners discloses that the injuries sustained by the petitioners are the injuries sustained, in a road traffic accident. The Division Bench of this court in MFA No.7493/2007 disposed of on 25.09.2007, held that if the Insurance Company has not challenged the charge sheet, they cannot be exonerated from the liability. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. I concur with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 17. In view of the same, the point regarding the liability is answered accordingly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeals are dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 10.12.2015 passed in MVC Nos.33 and 34 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, cum Member VI- MACT, Kudligi, is hereby confirmed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11797 MFA No. 101645 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101646 of 2016 iii) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9