- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1458 MFA No. 200840 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200840 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590 001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580 020, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT-587 101. (BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER). …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. LALITA W/O BHUVANESHWAR KATAGERI, AGED: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & HAND EMBROILDER EXPERT, R/O: MUDDEBIHAL-586 212, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1458 MFA No. 200840 of 2020 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE MISC. FIRST APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE/MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.10.2019 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VIII AT MUDDEBIHAL IN M.V.C. NO.6/2012. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The short point that arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant/NWKRTC herein could have contended that negligence should have been attributed to the petitioners who were the inmates of the car which had collided with the bus of the appellant. 3. The case of the petitioner in MVC No.6/2012 before the Tribunal was that on 25.04.2010, she along with her husband was coming from Savadatti to Muddebihal in her own vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-28/M- 5684. Near Kudalsangam, the bus belonging to the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1458 MFA No. 200840 of 2020 appellant/NWKRTC bearing Reg.No.KA-29/F-872 came in a high sped and in a negligent manner and over took a bullock cart and dashed against the car of the petitioner. The petitioner and other inmates of the car were injured and they were admitted to hospital. Later, they filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking adequate compensation. 4. The claim petition was opposed by respondent/NWKRTC contending that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver but it was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car. Therefore, the owner and insurer of the car are also necessary parties and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and evidence was let in. Thirteen documents were produced on behalf of the petitioner and the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1458 MFA No. 200840 of 2020 6. Evidently, the petitioner was the owner of the car bearing Reg.KA-28/M-5684. Therefore, she could not have filed a claim petition against her own insurer under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the owner and insurer of the car were necessary parties to the petition is bereft of any permissible legal principles and therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. 7. Secondly, the petitioner was not the driver of her car. Though she was an inmate, contributory negligence cannot be attributed to her. For her, it was a case of composite negligence. Nothing prevented the appellant/NWKRTC to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, if at all, it was necessary. Therefore, the contention that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner is also not sustainable in law. Hence, the question of liability as may be found from the records cannot be found fault with and the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the appellant/NWKRTC. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1458 MFA No. 200840 of 2020 8. The petitioner had suffered the fracture of ulna of the forearm, displaced fracture of L1 vertebra which were grievous in nature and the medical expenses alone attributed to the extent of `1,71,500/-. The Tribunal assessed the disability at 8% and holding that the notional income at `6,000/- per month, awarded a total sum of `2,45,806/-. In no way, said compensation awarded can be said to be excessive or exorbitant 9. In that view of the matter, the appeal is bereft of any merits and therefore it is dismissed. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63 CT: AK