- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111772014 NC: 2026:KHC:54205 MFA No. 1774 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1775 of 2014 MFA No. 1776 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1774 OF 2014(MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1775 OF 2014(MV) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1776 OF 2014(MV-I) IN MFA NO.1774/2014: BETWEEN: THE AUTHORISED OFFICER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.982, 2ND FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA 4TH BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 034. BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT [BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE (VC)] AND: 1 . SMT.MANNA KHAN YAASMIN BANU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, W/O LATE MANNA KHAN SADIQ, HOUSE WIFE R Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111772014 NC: 2026:KHC:54205 MFA No. 1774 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1775 of 2014 MFA No. 1776 of 2014 1(a) MINOR, MANNA KHAN SHOYAB, AGED ONE YEAR, S/O LATE MANNA KHAN SADIQ 2. SMT.MANNA KHAN MAAJAN BI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O LATE MANNA KHAN SHAFI SAB, 2(a) MANNA KHAN JABEENA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS D/O LATE MANNA KHAN SHAFI SAB, RESPONDENT NOs.1(a) & 2(a) ARE MINORS REP BY NATURAL MOTHER & GUARDIAN SMT.MANNA KHAN YASMIN BANU, (RESPONDENT NO.1) ALL ARE R/AT KUNCHUR VILLAGE AND POST, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 002. 3. SMT. S.LEELA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O OMKARAPPA, D.NO.57, NIJALINGAPPA BADAVANE, "A" BLOCK, DAVANAGERE CITY - 577 001. 4. B. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O KOTRESHAPPA, R/AT 12TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, J.C.EXTN., HARIHARA TOWN, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.(DRIVER) …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI JAGADEESH HT., ADVOCATE AND SRI VISHAL KUMAR MANGAJ ADV. FOR R3 & R4 (PH); NOTICE TO R1, R2 & R2(a) - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R1(a) - MINOR, REP BY R1 V/C/O DATED 05.04.2015 - NOTICE TO R3 TO R4 IS D/W] - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111772014 NC: 2026:KHC:54205 MFA No. 1774 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1775 of 2014 MFA No. 1776 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO. 9/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-IX, AT HARAPANAHALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,28,392/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO.1775/2014: BETWEEN: THE AUTHORISED OFFICER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.982, 2ND FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, 4TH BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 034. BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT [BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE (VC)] AND: 1 . MINOR IMRAN AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS S/O ALLABAKSHI, REP BY GURADIAN/FATHER ALLABHAKSHI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O ISMAIL SAB, R/O 3RD CROSS, SIDDESHWARANAGAR, RANEBENNUR TOWN, HAVERI DIST - 581 110. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111772014 NC: 2026:KHC:54205 MFA No. 1774 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1775 of 2014 MFA No. 1776 of 2014 2 . SMT.S.LEELA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O OMKARAPPA, D.NO.57, NIJALINGAPPA BADAVANE, 'A' BLOCK, DAVANAGERE CITY - 577 001. 3 . B.SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O KOTRESHAPPA, R/O 12TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, J.C.EXTEN., HARIHARA TOWN, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI JAGADEESH HT., ADVOCATE FOR R1 (PH) V/C/O DATED 10.04.2014 NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS D/W] THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.10/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, HARAPANAHALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,60,160/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO.1776/2014: BETWEEN: THE AUTHORISED OFFICER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.982, 2ND FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, 4TH BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 034. BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT [BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE (VC)] - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111772014 NC: 2026:KHC:54205 MFA No. 1774 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1775 of 2014 MFA No. 1776 of 2014 AND: 1 . M SUBHAN SAB AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O KHAN SAB, R/O KUNCHUR VILLAGE AND POST, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTIRCT - 577 001. 2 . SMT.S.LEELA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O OMKARAPPA, D.NO.57, NIJALINGAPPA BADAVANE A BLOCK, DAVANAGERE CITY - 577 001. 3 . B.SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O KOTRESHAPPA, R/O 12TH CROSS,1ST MAIN, J.C.EXTN., HARIHARA TOWN, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI H.T.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VISHAL KUMAR MANGAJ, ADV. FOR R1 (PH); V/O DATED 05.04.2014 NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS D/W] THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.11/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, HARAPANAHALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.89,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111772014 NC: 2026:KHC:54205 MFA No. 1774 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1775 of 2014 MFA No. 1776 of 2014 JUDGMENT Challenging common judgment and award dated 30.11.2013 passed by Senior Civil Judge & MACT - IX, Harapanahalli, in MVCs no.9, 10 and 11 of 2012, these appeals are filed by insurer. 2. Brief facts leading to these appeals as stated are that at 4:15 pm on 18.11.2010, when Manna Khan Sadiq was riding motorcycle no.KA-36/L-8297 with two pillion riders on Harapanahalli-Harihar Road, driver of Jeep no.KA-01/MC-1449 drove it in rash and negligent manner, it dashed against motorcycle. Accident resulted death of Manna Khan Sadiq on- spot. Pillion riders sustained grievous injuries. Despite treatment at Government Hospital, Harapanahalli, SSIMS Hospital, Bapuji Hospital and Shilpa Diagnostic Centre, Davanagere, they did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity. Alleging loss of dependency wife, minor son, mother and minor sister of deceased Manna Khan Sadiq filed MVC no.9/2012 against owner, driver and insurer of offending vehicle. While pillion riders filed MVCs no.10 and 11/2012 for compensation towards loss of earning capacity etc. Since all claims arose out of same accident, they were clubbed together. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111772014 NC: 2026:KHC:54205 MFA No. 1774 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1775 of 2014 MFA No. 1776 of 2014 3. On appearance, respondents opposed claim petitions on all grounds including alleging contributory negligence on part of deceased. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed following: ISSUES MVC No.9/2012 1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 18/11/2010 about 4.15 pm near Hirekere on Harapanahalli-Harihar Road, when Munna Khan Sadiq alongwith Subhan Sab were traveling on two wheeler vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA 36/L- 8297, at that time the Respondent No.2 being the driver of Mahindra Scorpio SLX Turbo Omni vehicle 4 wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA01/MC- 1449, drove it in a high speed with rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the accident, due to that said Munna Khan Sadiq died at the spot? 2. Whether the Respondent No.1 and 3 prove that they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitle for the compensation, If so from whom, what extent and what rate of interest? 4. What Relief or award? MVC NO.10/2012 & MVC NO.11/2012 1. Whether the petitioners proves that on 18/11/2010 about 4.15 pm near Hirekere on Harapanahalli-Harihar Road, when he was traveling on two wheeler vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA 36/L-8297 alongwith his friend, at that time the Respondent No.2 being the driver of Mahindra Scorpio SLX Turbo Omni vehicle 4 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111772014 NC: 2026:KHC:54205 MFA No. 1774 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1775 of 2014 MFA No. 1776 of 2014 wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA01 MC-1449, drove it in a high speed with rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the accident, due to that he sustained simple/grievous injuries? 2. Whether the Respondent No.1 and 3 prove that they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitle for the compensation, If so from whom, what extent and what rate of interest? 4. What Relief or award? 4. In trial, claimant no.1 in MVC no.9/2012, guardian of claimant in MVC no.10/2012 and claimant in MVC no.11/2012 along with Doctors who treated them deposed as PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P73. Insurer did not lead oral evidence but got marked Insurance policy as Ex.R1 with consent. 5. On consideration, tribunal answered issues no.1 in affirmative, issues no.2 in negative and issues no.3 and 4 in favor of claimants, assessed compensation and held insurer liable to pay same. Aggrieved thereby, these appeals are filed. 6. Sri O Mahesh, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeals were by insurer challenging finding of tribunal on liability. It was submitted, Section 128 of MV Act - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111772014 NC: 2026:KHC:54205 MFA No. 1774 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1775 of 2014 MFA No. 1776 of 2014 provided for carriage of only one pillion rider on motorcycle. In violation of same, deceased Manna Khan Sadiq was carrying two pillion riders on motorcycle. It was submitted motorcycle was not built to carry excess passengers or weight, which would cause imbalance, loss of control and cause accident. Therefore, when illegal carriage of two pillion riders had caused accident, insurer would not be liable to pay compensation. On said ground sought for allowing appeal. 7. Sri Vishal Kumar Mangaj and Sri Jagadeesh HT, learned counsel for claimants opposed appeals and prayed for dismissal. 8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned award and record. 9. In view of above, common point arising for consideration is: " Whether Tribunal erred in holding Insurer liable to pay compensation?" 10. These appeals by insurer against impugned award are solely on liability, mainly on ground that carriage of two - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111772014 NC: 2026:KHC:54205 MFA No. 1774 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1775 of 2014 MFA No. 1776 of 2014 pillion riders on motorcycle in violation of Section 128 of MV Act would per se imply negligence. 11. In instant case, to establish actionable negligence, claimants relied on prosecution records, complaint, FIR, charge sheet, spot mahazar and Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report as Exs.P1 to P4 and P7. It is seen that prosecution records implicate driver of insured vehicle for causing accident by his rash and negligent driving. Admittedly, PW.1 is widow of rider and PW.2 is guardian of claimant and were not eye-witnesses. PW.3 is second pillion rider and eye-witness. In his cross- examination, he denies suggestion about accident being caused due to rider of motorcycle not possessing driving licence. Suggestion by insurer that rider was facing problem in riding motorcycle due to two pillion riders is denied. However suggestion that there was head-on collision between motorcycle and Jeep in middle of road is admitted. Spot Mahazar does not describe location of accident spot from edge of road. 12. Thus, only material evidence insofar as negligence is absence of driving licence of rider of motorcycle and - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111772014 NC: 2026:KHC:54205 MFA No. 1774 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1775 of 2014 MFA No. 1776 of 2014 occurrence of accident in middle of road. On whether occurrence of accident in middle of road by itself lead to implication of contributory negligence, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 735, held: "Contributory negligence: 29. On the matter of extent of contribution to the accident, it is held by the Tribunal that the appellant claimants herein should have taken utmost care while moving on the highway. Looking at the spot of the accident, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant claimants were moving on the middle of the road which led to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that though the tractor has been charge-sheeted under Sections 279 and 338 IPC, but given the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant claimants also contributed to the accident to the extent of 25%. The High Court without assigning any reason concurred with the findings of the Tribunal with respect to contributory negligence. We find it pertinent to observe that both the Tribunal and the High Court erred in holding the appellant claimants in these appeals liable for contributory negligence. The Tribunal arrived at the above conclusion only on the basis of the fact that the accident took place in the middle of the road in the absence of any evidence to prove the same. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the contribution of the appellant claimants in the accident is not proved by the respondents by producing evidence and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence, which has been upheld by the High Court, is set aside." - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111772014 NC: 2026:KHC:54205 MFA No. 1774 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1775 of 2014 MFA No. 1776 of 2014 13. Similarly, contention about implying negligence due to carriage of two pillion riders on motorcycle has been negatived by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Siddique v. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2020) 3 SCC 57, holding as follows: "12. Both the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law, Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor cycle. Section 194C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111772014 NC: 2026:KHC:54205 MFA No. 1774 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1775 of 2014 MFA No. 1776 of 2014 minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motor cycle. It is not even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not riding on the motor cycle. The fact that the motor cycle was hit by the car from behind, is admitted. Interestingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was wearing a helmet and that the deceased was knocked down after the car hit the motor cycle from behind, are all not assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2 persons on the pillion of the motor cycle, could have added to the imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous and is not based either upon pleading or upon the evidence on record. Nothing was extracted from PW.3 to the effect that 2 persons on the pillion added to the imbalance. 13. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. Hence the reduction of 10% towards contributory negligence, is clearly unjustified and the same has to be set aside.” 14. And three Judges Bench of Apex Court in Dinesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2018) 1 SCC 750, and two Judges Bench in Saraswati Palariya v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3988, arrived at similar conclusion in respect of contention about accident caused by rider/driver without driving licence. - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111772014 NC: 2026:KHC:54205 MFA No. 1774 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1775 of 2014 MFA No. 1776 of 2014 15. In view of above, insurer's challenge fails. Point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently, following: ORDER Appeals are dismissed. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for payment. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV,YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51