- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7186 MFA No. 3944 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3944 OF 2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER. VAISHAK MOHAN. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA P.E W/O SATISH KUMAR K R, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. 38, KASAVANAHALLI (V) KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 144. 2. SATISHKUMAR K R S/O RAJASHEKARAPPA, MAJOR, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7186 MFA No. 3944 of 2024 R/AT KASAVANAHLLI (V) KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 144. 3. SRI KRIANKUMAR P.E. S/O ESWARAPPA P.E, R/AT PANCHANAHALI VILLAGE, KADUR TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 138. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUDHIR B.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SATISHKUMAR K R., SD; R3- KIRANKUMAR P E., SD) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.01.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.4340/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, PRL. MACT, BENGALURU SCCH- 1, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,89,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 27.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurance company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 31.01.2024 passed in MVC - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7186 MFA No. 3944 of 2024 No.4340/2020 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Prl. MACT, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner/injured claimant had filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.3,89,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company preferred this appeal. 4. It is stated that the accident occurred on 22.01.2019, whereas the complaint lodged on 03.02.2019. No explanation has been given for the delay in lodging the complaint. As per the crime records, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-EH-5721 and the rider of the said vehicle is the husband of petitioner. The Tribunal has held that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7186 MFA No. 3944 of 2024 insurer of the motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA-18-EE- 9178 is liable to pay 50% of the compensation. The said finding is not based on cogent and convincing evidence. As such, the said finding is liable to be set aside. 5. Though the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle on which the petitioner was travelling, the Tribunal has directed the insurer of the other motorcycle to pay 50% of the compensation. The said finding is liable to be set aside. The amounts awarded under the other heads are also excessive and thus requested for modification of the order. 6. As per the case of the petitioner, on 22.01.2019, while she was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-EH-5721 along with the rider, who is her husband and when they reached near the Veterinary Hospital, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-18-EE- 9178 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their motorcycle. As a result, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries. A case was registered in Crime No.5/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7186 MFA No. 3944 of 2024 against the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 13-EH-5721. 7. After service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. Respondent No.3 filed its written statement contending that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-EH- 5721, on which the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider. It is further stated that a charge sheet has been filed against the said rider. Respondent No.3 also contended that it is not a necessary party and respondent No.2 failed to intimate the accident. It was further contended that the jurisdictional police did not comply with the mandatory requirements under Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. But the Tribunal has observed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-18-EE-9178. Respondent No.2-the owner of the said motorcycle remained ex parte. Respondent No.1 the owner of the motorcycle on which the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider, also remained ex parte. The police have filed the charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle bearing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7186 MFA No. 3944 of 2024 registration No.KA-13-EH-5721, who is husband of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner in her evidence stated that while she was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle of her husband bearing registration No.KA-13-EH-5721, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-18-EE-9178 came from the opposite direction and dashed against their motorcycle. As a result, there was a head-on collision between both the vehicles, due to which she fell down and sustained injuries. One Kirankumar, who is none other than respondent No.2 in the petition, lodged the complaint on 03.02.2019 in respect of the accident that occurred on 22.01.2019. In the said complaint, he stated that while he was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-18-EE-9178 in front of the Veterinary Hospital, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-EH-5721 came from Singatagere and dashed against his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, he sustained injuries and was immediately shifted to the hospital. The complaint was given 10 days after the accident. PW-1 stated that she has no idea about the width of the road. But - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7186 MFA No. 3944 of 2024 she stated that there was a head-on collision between both the motorcycles. She also admitted that the police had registered a case against the rider of the motorcycle/ her husband. As the respondent No.1 was not having valid driving licence and the motorcycle was not having insurance policy at the time of the accident. 9. As per Ex.P.6-IMV report, damages were caused to both the motorcycles and the same have been detailed in paragraph 14 of the judgment. The Tribunal observed that both the vehicles were moving in opposite directions and respondent No.2 was riding on the left side of the road, whereas respondent No.1 was riding in the middle of the road at the time of the accident. It is further observed that the petitioner and her husband did not challenge the charge sheet filed against them. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that both the riders were riding their motorcycles without due care and caution and thus there is a head-on-collision between the two vehicles. The charge sheet was filed against the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-EH-5721 for not having a valid driving licence and not having a policy insurance. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7186 MFA No. 3944 of 2024 The Tribunal held that there was contributory negligence on the part of both the vehicles in the ratio of 50:50. 10. The Tribunal further observed that it was a case of composite negligence involving a head-on-collision between both the motorcycles and both the riders had equally contributed to the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the liability at 50% on each of them. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company preferred the present appeal contending that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner’s husband, while she was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 13-EH-5721. It is contended that another vehicle was falsely implicated, as her husband had no valid driving licence and the vehicle was not insured at the time of accident. It is further contended that when the petitioner was shifted to the hospital, the medical authorities did not inform the police and there was a delay of 10 days in filing the complaint. PW-1 herself in her evidence at the earliest point of time stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of her husband, who was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-EH-5721 and the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7186 MFA No. 3944 of 2024 charge sheet is also filed against him. But later, they wrongly implicated another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-18- EE-9178 to claim wrongfully. The insurance company further contended that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and without any basis held that the accident was a head-on collision and fixed contributory negligence at 50% on each of the riders. Respondent No.1-Satishkumar K.R., is the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13- EH-5721, respondent No.2 is the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-18-EE-9178, and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the vehicle belonging to respondent No.2. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 relied upon the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others1 in which it was held as under: "There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the accident cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own 1 (2015) 9 SCC 273 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7186 MFA No. 3944 of 2024 negligence. Extent of his negligence is required to be determined as damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries have to be reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. However, in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but due to the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. In such case, the plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several." But the facts of the above case are not applicable to the facts of this case. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, in his counter, contended that he is not a necessary party to the proceedings and the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 13-EH-5721, which is clearly substantiated by the police records. Therefore, requested the Court to dismiss the case as against him. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7186 MFA No. 3944 of 2024 13. Considering the above evidence on record, this Court finds that there was no negligence on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. Since respondent No.1 has no valid driving licence and the vehicle was not covered by a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident, he alone is liable to pay the compensation. 14. Accordingly, the appeal filed by respondent No.3 is allowed, and the finding of the Tribunal in fixing 50% negligence on the part of respondent No.3 is set aside. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 102