- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30167 MFA No. 19 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2588 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.19 OF 2019(MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2588 OF 2019(MV-I) IN MFA No. 19/2019: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR, S.L. CENTER, MG ROAD, MANGALORE - 575003. BY CLAIMS MANAGER, HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, 2ND FLOOR, NO. 25/1, BUILING NO. 2, SHANKAR NARAYANA BUILDING, MG ROAD, BENGALURU 560001. BY ITS MANAGER CLAIMS SOUTH …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMA RAO @ RAMA VILYAGAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30167 MFA No. 19 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2588 of 2019 S/O.L LATE. PADDANNA RAO, R/O. RURAL HOUSE, CHANDRA NAGAR, YELLUR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576101. 2. ABDUL KHADER AGED 70 YEARS, S/O SUFI BYARI, R/O MALLAR KERI SAYIL KOTE, MALLAR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. SADASHIVA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15/10/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.71/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,33,085/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL FULL AND FINAL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 2588/2019: BETWEEN: RAMA RAO @ RAM VILYAGAR, S/O LATE PADDANNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O KURAL HOUSE, CHANDRA NAGAR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30167 MFA No. 19 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2588 of 2019 YELLUR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574113 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SADASHIVA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ABDUL KHADER S/O SUFI BYARI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O MALLA KERI SAYIL KOTE MALLAR VILLAGE, UDUPI TQ UDUPI DISTRICT-574106. 2. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, S L CENTER, M G ROAD, MANGALORE-575003. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2(VC); V/O. DATED 08.08.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.71/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30167 MFA No. 19 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2588 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT These two appeals arise out of the order that is rendered by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi in MVC No.71/2016 dated 15.10.2018. While MFA No.19/2019 came to be filed by the Insurance Company against which liability was fastened to pay compensation, MFA No.2588/2019 is filed by the claimant. 2. Sri.O.Mahesh learned counsel who represents the Insurance Company i.e., appellant in MFA No.19/2019 and respondent No.2 in MFA No.2588/2019 appears through video conference and Sri.Sadashiva.D learned counsel who represents the claimant i.e., respondent No.1 in MFA No.19/2019 who is the appellant in MFA No.2588/2019, in one voice submit that the owner of the offending vehicle was not added as party to the claim petition. Though sufficient proof was produced giving particulars of the owner of the offending vehicle and that notice was sent by the Insurance Company to the owner of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30167 MFA No. 19 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2588 of 2019 the offending vehicle, he did not turned up. Claim petition was disposed of without making any observation about non-adding of owner of the offending vehicle as party to the claim petition. The claim petition was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the insurer. 3. The submission made by Sri.O.Mahesh learned counsel for the insurance company is also that the claimant laid a false claim and that the owner of the offending vehicle is a necessary party to the proceedings. 4. Learned counsel who represents the claimant i.e., Sri.D.Sadashiva states that the claimant was under an impression that the driver of the offending vehicle was the owner of the offending vehicle. However, the owner of the offending vehicle is some other person. 5. A perusal of contents of Ex.R2 goes to show that the name of the insured is Mr.Zainuddin. The contents of Ex.R3 reveals that the Insurance Company sent notice to the said person to give particulars and also to answer - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30167 MFA No. 19 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2588 of 2019 about the claim laid. Considering these facts and basing on the submission that is made by both the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that a fair opportunity is required to be given to the parties to implead the owner of the offending vehicle as party to the claim petition. Therefore, both the appeals are disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The order that is rendered by the Additional Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Udupi in MVC No.71/2016 dated 15.10.2018, is set aside. (ii) The matter is remanded back to the same Tribunal for consideration of the issues afresh. (iii) Appellants to the appeals are given liberty to move an application for impleadment of the owner of the alleged offending vehicle. (iv) On such impleadment, Tribunal to give opportunity to all the parties to the proceedings to adduce evidence. Thereafter the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter on merits. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30167 MFA No. 19 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2588 of 2019 (v) Amount, if any, in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. (vi) Parties to the proceedings who are on record shall appear before the Tribunal on 27.07.2026. Issuance of further notice is not required. In the light of the disposal of the appeals, the proceedings in interlocutory applications if any pending stands closed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13