- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010683092024 NC: 2026:KHC:36700 MFA No. 7709 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 7709 OF 2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SUNDRA @ SUNDAR S/O KALAIAHNA SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT HARALE VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA TQ CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 441. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SREENIVASAN M Y, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRINIVAS C M S/O MADAN GOPAL RAJ MAJOR, R/AT CNB FARM HARADANAHALLI POST BANDIGERE CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571 441. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INS CO LTD., No.363,, SRI HARI COMPLEX SEETHAVILAS ROAD MYSURU - 570 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010683092024 NC: 2026:KHC:36700 MFA No. 7709 of 2024 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2024 PASSED IN MVC No.428/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KOLLEGAL, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 04.07.2024 passed in MVC No.428/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT, Kollegala, wherein the claim petition of the appellant has been dismissed. 2. Even though the appeal is listed today for admission, it is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. The appellant made a claim petition praying to award compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. The said claim petition has been - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010683092024 NC: 2026:KHC:36700 MFA No. 7709 of 2024 contested by respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2/insurer of the vehicle. The Tribunal has framed the following issues and additional issue: ISSUES (i) Whether the petitioner proves that, he is the victim of the motor vehicle accident caused by the driver of the Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-10-M-2888 on 23.05.2012 at about 1.20 PM, in front of Canara Bank, Double road, Chamarajanagar town within the limits of Chamarajanagar town police station and sustained injuries as pleaded in the petition? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount? From whom? (iii) Whether the respondent No.1 proves that he is not liable to pay compensation as pleaded in its objection? (iv) To what order or award? - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010683092024 NC: 2026:KHC:36700 MFA No. 7709 of 2024 Additional Issue 1. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, it is not liable to pay compensation as pleaded in its objections? 4. The Tribunal has recorded evidence. The claimant has been examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and also examined Doctor as CW.1 and got marked Exs.C1 to C3. Respondent No.2 examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R8. The Tribunal after hearing arguments on both sides, at the time of passing the judgment has framed the following additional issues No.2 and 3: Additional Issue 2. Whether the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable? 3. What Order? 5. The Tribunal has not heard the arguments on the said issues mentioning that the petitioner is aware of the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010683092024 NC: 2026:KHC:36700 MFA No. 7709 of 2024 objection filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 taking contention of the maintainability and considered only additional issue No.2 and dismissed the claim petition holding that it is not maintainable. The said order of Tribunal has been challenged by the claimant in the present appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for appellant/claimant and respondent No.1/owner and respondent No.2/insurer of vehicle involved in the accident. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that earlier claim petition filed by the claimant in MVC No.349/2015 has been dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 18.09.2017. The certified copy of the order sheet is at Ex.R8. The said dismissal of the claim petition is otherwise on merits and therefore, the claimant is entitled to file a second petition and on that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt.Suresh Devi and others - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010683092024 NC: 2026:KHC:36700 MFA No. 7709 of 2024 vs. Jasbir Singh and others (ILR 2015(1) volume 526). He further contended that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act filed claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. The finding of the Tribunal based on Order 9 Rule 9, CPC is not proper. With this he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and remand of the matter to consider the claim petition on merits. 8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that the claim petition filed by the claimant earlier has been dismissed for non-prosecution. Without getting setting aside the said order, the claimant has filed petition for second time and therefore, it is not maintainable and considering the same, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment. With this they prayed to dismiss the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010683092024 NC: 2026:KHC:36700 MFA No. 7709 of 2024 9. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the judgment, award and trial Court records. 10. It is not in dispute that the claimant has earlier filed claim petition in MVC No.349/2015 and it is dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 18.09.2017. The certified copy of the order sheet is at Ex.R8. On perusal of the order sheet dated 18.09.2017, claimant/his advocate was not present when the case was posted for further evidence to record the evidence of the Doctor who was present on that day and noting the same claim petition came to be dismissed noting that claimant is not interested to pursue the case. The earlier decision is not on merits. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment gave finding on additional issue No.2 that the claimant ought to have filed the application praying to set-aside the order passed earlier and restoration of the said claim petition and therefore, second petition is not maintainable as per Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. The claim petition has been filed earlier also under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010683092024 NC: 2026:KHC:36700 MFA No. 7709 of 2024 presently also under the same provision. The Tribunals have been constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The procedures and powers of the claims Tribunal have been stated in Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads thus: 169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals.—(1) In holding any inquiry under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation, choose one or more persons - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010683092024 NC: 2026:KHC:36700 MFA No. 7709 of 2024 possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry. (4) For the purpose of enforcement of its award, the Claims Tribunal shall also have all the powers of a Civil Court in the execution of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as if the award were a decree for the payment of money passed by such court in a civil suit. 11. There is no any provision for making CPC strictly applicable to the proceedings before the claims Tribunal. Considering the said aspect, Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC cannot be made applicable to the claim petition for order passed by the claims Tribunal. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt.Suresh Devi (Supra) has considered that Order 23 Rule 1 CPC are not applicable to the proceedings before the MACT and earlier dismissal of the claim petition is otherwise than on merits and has held that there is no bar to file fresh petition irrespective of the fact whether the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010683092024 NC: 2026:KHC:36700 MFA No. 7709 of 2024 or was dismissed for default. The said observations are made in para 11 and 12 which are as under: (11) Moreover, another co-ordinate bench of this courting Bimla Devi and another v. Raj Bala and others CR No.4995 of 2008 decided on 10.03.2009 has held that the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC are not applicable to proceedings before MACT. However, in that case besides non-applicability of Order 23 Rule 1 the court based its finding on the fact that withdrawal of first petition was conditional. (12) The judicial approach thus seems to be liberal in regard to prosecution of claim petitions under the Act. The dismissal of the claim petition otherwise then on merits, has not been held to be a bar to fresh petition irrespective of the fact whether the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn or was dismissed in default. 12. In the case on hand also the claimant has filed fresh petition since his claim petition earlier has been dismissed for default/non-prosecution. Considering the above aspect, impugned judgment requires to be set-aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition on merits. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010683092024 NC: 2026:KHC:36700 MFA No. 7709 of 2024 In view of the above, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 04.07.2024 passed in MVC No.428/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Kollegala, is set- aside. (iii) The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition on merits. (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal without awaiting Court notice on 07.09.2026. (v) Since the claim petition is of the year 2017. The Tribunal shall make efforts to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 Ct.sm