- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12384 MFA No. 101094 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101094 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O. LAGAMAPPA KABADAGI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: SHIVAPUR (K), TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R LATUR, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI. HULLEPPA S/O. SHIVABASAPPA KABADAGI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHIVAPUR (K), TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD 2ND FLOOR, MADIWAL ARCADE, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. JOSHI, ADV FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:14.03.2014, PASSED IN MVC. NO.2029/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT GOKAK, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED U/S. 166 OF MV ACT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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:12384 MFA No. 101094 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner, challenging the dismissal of the claim petition vide judgment dated 14.03.2014 in MVC 2029/2011 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Gokak. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: It is the case of the petitioner that, on 20.07.2011 at about 09:30p.m, he was riding a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.23/Q.0438 to go to Kotabagi Village to attend Lagamawwadevi jatra. When he came near Madival farm on Avargol-Shiragaon road, suddenly, a cattle came across the road making the petitioner to apply the brake immediately. As a result, he fell down, sustained a grievous injuries and spent a huge amount towards medical expenses. Hence, prays to allow the claim petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12384 MFA No. 101094 of 2014 3. A Notice was issued to the owner of the motorcycle. He appeared through the counsel; However, did not file a statement of objections. 4. The Insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contends that the petitioner being the rider of the motorcycle would step into the shoes of his owner and cannot claim the compensation for his own negligence and illegal act. Hence, 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 PW1, and marked 15 documents as Exhibits P.1 to P.15. The respondents have not led any oral evidence; however, marked 2 documents with consent of the parties. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12384 MFA No. 101094 of 2014 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dated 14.03.2014. 8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that there is a negligence on the part of the petitioner himself. He submits that under Section 163A of the MV Act, there is no need to prove the negligence. The said aspect was not considered by the Tribunal, and committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12384 MFA No. 101094 of 2014 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company supported the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is the rider of the motor vehicle and he being responsible for the accident, he steps into the shoes of the owner. The owner and the petitioner cannot be one and the same. The Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner cannot claim the compensation for his own negligent act. Further, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of this Hon'ble Apex Court in the case National Insurance Company Limited v. Sinitha and others reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4916 and held that Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not applicable when the claimant himself is responsible for the accident. The Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12384 MFA No. 101094 of 2014 judgment. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is hereby confirmed. The office is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB