- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010419112016 NC: 2026:KHC:42998 MFA No. 6640 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6642 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6640 OF 2016 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6642 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 6640/2016: BETWEEN: BASAVALINGAIAH S/O SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.153, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, SRINVIASAPURA, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PUTTA SWAMY C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR VASANTH KUMAR H Y S/O LATE YALLAPPA, NO.J-1-B-201, JUDICIAL BLOCK, N.G.VILLAGE, KORAMANAGALA, BANGALORE-95. NOW RESIDING AT 3RD CROSS VIJAYASHRI LAYOUT, BEHIND BMTC SATELLITE BUS-STAND, MYLSANDAR, KENGERI, BANGALORE-60. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.18, 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010419112016 NC: 2026:KHC:42998 MFA No. 6640 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6642 of 2016 KRISHI BHAVAN, OPP. HUDSON CHURCH HUDSON CIRCLE, N.T.ROAD, BANGALORE-01. (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.P. VENKATAPATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD: 15.03.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S ) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.6.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2476/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION . IN MFA NO. 6642/2016: BETWEEN: PRAKASH NAIDU @ PRAKASH S/O GOVINDANAIDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEAS, NO.26/10, ARAHALLI NAIDU LAYOUT, 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-60. ALSO RESIDING AT NO.128, 3RD CROSS, T R NAGAR, BANGALORE. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. PUTTASWAMY C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR VASANTH KUMAR H Y S/O LATE YALLAPPA, NO.J-1-B-201, JUDICIAL BLOCK, N.G.VILLAGE, KORAMANAGALA, BANGALORE-95. NOW RESIDING AT 3RD CROSS VIJAYASHRI LAYOUT, BEHIND BMTC SATELLITE BUS-STAND, MYLSANDAR, KENGERI, BANGALORE-60. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010419112016 NC: 2026:KHC:42998 MFA No. 6640 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6642 of 2016 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.18, 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, OPP. HUSDON CHURCH HUDSON CIRCLE, N.T.ROAD, BANGALORE-01. (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER) ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.P. VENKATAPATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD: 27.10.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S ) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.6.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2525/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT The Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge And Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore(SCCH-18) passed common award in M.V.C.Nos.2476 & 2525/2015 on 23.06.2016. 2. The injured claimant-petitioners met with an accident on 13.01.2015 and sustained injuries. The petitioner in - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010419112016 NC: 2026:KHC:42998 MFA No. 6640 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6642 of 2016 MVC.No.2525/2015 was riding the scooter bearing registration No.KA-05-EU-4078 along with pillion rider i.e. petitioner in MVC.No.2476/2015 and when they reached near Satellite Bus Stop, Kengeri, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA- 01-ME-8514 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioners’ vehicle. As a result, the rider and the pillion rider of the scooter fell down and sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. They filed claim applications claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- respectively with interest. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the claim petitions. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, MFA No.6640 of 2016 is filed by the petitioner in MVC No.2476 of 2015 mainly contending that the scooter was hit by a car bearing No.KA-01- ME-8514. There was case and counter case registered in Crime Nos.5 of 2015 and 6 of 2015 by Kengeri traffic police. Complaints were given by driver of the car and rider of the scooter. But after investigation, charge sheet was filed against the rider of the scooter in Crime No.5 of 2015. As such, the claim petition in MVC No.2476 of 2015 was filed under Section - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010419112016 NC: 2026:KHC:42998 MFA No. 6640 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6642 of 2016 163-A of the MV Act on the ground that claimant need not plead or prove negligence in accident occurred due to the use of car. But, the Tribunal erred in discussing the negligence of the rider of the scooter and dismissed the claim petition. The petitioner relied upon the citations reported in 2013 ACJ 1492 Sanaulla & another Vs. Divisional Manager, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation,. in which it was held that the petitioner had proved the accident involving car and scooter without relying on the negligence aspect. It is further contended that he sustained fractures, which were grievous in nature. He was admitted in hospital as inpatient for 7 days and again, he was re-admitted for 5 days and underwent surgery. External fixators were removed and internal fixators were inserted and spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Thus, requested for compensation. 4. MFA No.6642 of 2016 is filed by the petitioner in MVC No.2525 of 2015. The grounds of appeal are almost similar to that of MFA No.6640 of 2016 and need not be reiterated. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010419112016 NC: 2026:KHC:42998 MFA No. 6640 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6642 of 2016 5. Admittedly, the claim petitions were filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. When, rider and pillion rider of the scooter bearing registration No.KA-05-EU- 4078 reached near satellite bus stop, Kengeri, at that time, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-01-ME-8514 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle. Both of them, sustained simple and grievous injuries and underwent surgery. 6. Petitioner in MVC.2476 of 2015 was aged 43 years at the time of accident, working as a tailor and earning Rs.40,000/- per annum, whereas petitioner in MVC.No.2525/2015 was aged 36 years, running business and earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. 7. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the car bearing registration No.KA-01-ME-8514 and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said car. Policy was in force as on the date of accident. It is stated that accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the car and as such, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly involved and severally liable to pay - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010419112016 NC: 2026:KHC:42998 MFA No. 6640 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6642 of 2016 compensation. Petitioners have not impleaded the owner and the insurer of the scooter bearing registration No.KA-05-EU- 4078. Charge sheet is filed against rider of the scooter. 8. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and respondent No.2 filed objections stating that owner of the vehicle and concerned police have not complied the mandatory provision of Sec.134 (C) and 158 (6) of M.V. Act. Driver of the car was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. It is contended that, admittedly, the policy was in existence and the liability of respondent No.2 is subject to conditions mentioned in the policy. Respondent No.2 admitted that there was no involvement of the car in the accident and there was no negligence of the driver of the car. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-claimants mainly contended that the applications were filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and therefore, the question of proving the rash and negligence of the driver of the car does not arise. The Tribunal considering the arguments of both sides and evidence - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010419112016 NC: 2026:KHC:42998 MFA No. 6640 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6642 of 2016 on record, held that the petitioners have not impleaded the owner and insurer of the scooter, and the petitioner Prakash was riding the scooter bearing registration No.KA-05-EU-4078 in rash and negligent manner on the foot path and suddenly entered the one way road and dashed to the car which was moving on the correct side of the road. As such, the owner and insurer of the scooter are proper and necessary parties. It was further observed that the petitioner in MVC No.2525/2015 is the tort-feasor and he cannot even maintain petition against the owner and insurer of scooter and accordingly, dismissed the claim petitions. 10. Aggrieved by the said order, these two appeals are filed. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants argued that the claimants are entitled for compensation under Section 163- A of the Act as it is the nature of no fault liability case. It is stated that what is required to be made is only the fact of injury and consequent liability due to the use of motorcycle making the owner and insurer of the vehicle liable under those statutory provisions. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010419112016 NC: 2026:KHC:42998 MFA No. 6640 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6642 of 2016 Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar and another reported in 2018 ACJ 1, in which it was held as under: “Whether in a claim proceedings under section 163-A, is it open to the insurance company to raise the defence- plea of negligence of victim held no, permitting insurance company to raise defence of negligence would bring proceedings under section 163-A at par with proceedings under section 166 which would not only be self- contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.” 11. In another judgment, in the case of Sanaulla and another Vs. Divisional Manager, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation reported in 2013 ACJ 1492, it was held as under: “Accident with Corporation bus resulting in death of motorcyclist and pillion rider, Claimants filed claim against Corporation under section 163-A contending that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus Claimants further contended that they need not prove negligence of bus driver, Specific case of Corporation is that motorcyclist at high speed lost control over motor cycle, dashed against road median divider, both riders on motor cycle fell on other side of the road while bus was coming from opposite direction and its driver could not anticipate that both riders would fall on other side of - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010419112016 NC: 2026:KHC:42998 MFA No. 6640 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6642 of 2016 the road. Corporation is in no way responsible for the accident and claim application is not maintainable. Tribunal found that claimants proved the accident, they need not prove negligence of the bus driver and awarded compensation, Tribunal’s finding upheld.” 12. In another judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrakanta Tiwari Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and Another reported in 2020 ACJ 2552, held as under: “XXX in a claim under section 163-A claimant need not plead or establish negligence or default of the owner of vehicle or of any other person; it is not relevant that person insured must be the driver of the vehicle but may as well have been riding with somebody else driving the vehicle which resulted in the death of the person driving the vehicle; negligence aspect is not to be considered while deciding claim application under section 163-A.” 13. For the same proposition, he relied upon the judgment in 2025 ACJ 244 in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Urmila Halder. 14. The Tribunal observed that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the accident occurred only - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010419112016 NC: 2026:KHC:42998 MFA No. 6640 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6642 of 2016 due to rash and negligence of the rider of the scooter. But, the owner and the insurance of the scooter are not added as parties. As such, the claim petition filed against the owner and the insurer of the car is not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed the applications. Even after dismissal applications by the Tribunal, the petitioners have not added the owner and insurer of the scooter and claimed compensation against the car on the ground that it was involved in the accident. 15. But the Learned counsel for the petitioners relied up on the above-said citations and submitted that in the proceedings filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the petitioner need not prove the rash and negligence as it is in the nature of no fault liability. It is sufficient if he proves the involvement of the vehicle. Therefore, this Court finds that it is reasonable to hold that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation. 16. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The claimant in MFA No.6640 of 2016 is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and the claimant in MFA - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010419112016 NC: 2026:KHC:42998 MFA No. 6640 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6642 of 2016 No.6642 of 2016 is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the amount with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of the order. On such deposit, petitioners are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75