- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32464-DB MFA No. 6456 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6456 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. S.N. RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 2. M.C. PROMOD S/O. LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF MALLANAYAKANAKATTE VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANATH KUMARA K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B.K. RAMESH S/O. KARIYANAYAKA MAJOR RESIDENT OF BEERUVALLI VILLAGE K.R. PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT -571 401. 2. ICICI LOMBORD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE MYTHRI ARCADE 1ST MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM MYSORE-560 009. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32464-DB MFA No. 6456 of 2017 3. SRI HARI OM LOGISTICS LTD. NO.314, NANJANGUD ROAD BANDIPALYA MYSORE-570 031. 4. THE MANAGER (LEGAL) BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. SEETHAVILAS ROAD MYSORE-570 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.S. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 5-8-2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE ON R-3 IS COMPLETE) * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12-5-2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.217 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32464-DB MFA No. 6456 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants for grant of compensation on account of death of M.C. Roopesh, (hereinafter referred to as deceased), who died in the road traffic accident that occurred on 24.01.2010, whereby the Tribunal by judgment and award dated 12.05.2016 in MVC No.217/2010 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mandya, (for short, 'Tribunal'), dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 of MV Act. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the claimants' case before the Tribunal is as under:- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32464-DB MFA No. 6456 of 2017 On 24.01.2010 at about 11.15 p.m., when one Roopesh had gone alongwith his friends to Alamshettyhalli and were returning back in a Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.KA- 54-1529, near Sri. Shiva Conventional Hall, Channegowdana Doddi, Maddur Town, Mandya District, the driver Sri. Mahesh had hit a canter goods vehicle parked on the foot path bearing registration No.KA-05-A-3956 and on account of the accident, Roopesh sustained grievous hurt and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Hence, the claimants had filed a claim petition under section 166 of M.V. Act before the Tribunal. Claimant No.1 is the mother and claimant No.2 is the brother of deceased Roopesh. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants vehemently contended that as on the date of the accident, one Mahesh- claimant in MVC No.328/2011 was the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-54-1529. The Tribunal saddled entire responsibility on deceased Roopesh and dismissed the claim petition considering the abatement charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer vide chargesheet-Ex-P7. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32464-DB MFA No. 6456 of 2017 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Sri. Pradeep B and Sri. Shivannegowda, learned counsel for respondent No.4 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and contended that the investigating officer after due investigation, filed charge sheet against deceased Roopesh and the Tribunal has already given a finding in MVC No.328/2011 and MVC No.796/2011, wherein, the Tribunal was of the opinion that deceased Roopesh was driving the Tata Indica car bearing No.KA-54-1529. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, the following point would arise for our consideration in this appeal:- "Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the appeal? 7. From the perusal of the material available on record, it clearly transpires that on the date of the accident i.e., on 24.1.2010, deceased Roopesh was driver of Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-54-1529 and dashed to the Goods - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32464-DB MFA No. 6456 of 2017 Canter bearing registration No.KA-05-A-3956, which was parked on the foot path. As per Ex-P1 FIR, Ex-P2 complaint, the name of the accused is shown as Mahesha, who is the claimant in MVC No.328/2011. However, the Investigating Officer conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet vide Ex-P7, wherein, at column No.17, the name of the accused is shown as Roopesh, who is none other than the deceased in this case. In this case, the claimants have not challenged the charge sheet. 8. We have perused Ex-P6-post mortem report. It clearly establishes that deceased Roopesh sustained the following injuries:- 1. Deep abrasion @ dorsal of hand 2. Fracture, dislocation of @ knee joint 3. c/w 6 x1 x 4cm @ chin 4. Abrasion @ left side of @ knee 5. Depression of left side of chest. The Doctor upon examination opined that cause of death is due to polytrauma with Neurogenic & Hemorrhagic shock due to injury sustained to vital organ i.e., brain. Further, 3rd - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32464-DB MFA No. 6456 of 2017 and 5th rib of left side of the chest were broken, it shows that deceased Roopesh was driving the Tata Indica car and he met with the accident and sustained injuries to his brain as well as chest. Since he was driving the Tata Indica car, he must have sustained injuries to the left side of the chest. Thus, it was deceased Roopesh, who was driving Tata Indica car and on account of his rash and negligent driving, the accident took place and therefore, accident on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of goods Canter is not established. As per Ex-P7 charge sheet, the Investigating Officer had found fault with deceased Roopesh. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act and therefore, the liability would arise only in case of fault on the part of vehicle against which the petition is preferred. In the instant case, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of deceased Roopesh. Further, the claimants have not challenged the charge sheet. Further, it is not on record whether deceased Roopesh was possessing valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. Hence, we are of the opinion that this appeal is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32464-DB MFA No. 6456 of 2017 liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, if the claimants have any other remedy, they may pursue the same in accordance with law before the competent authority. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14