Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 48590 (KAR)

SRI. SHIVAMURTHI v. SRI. GANESH R

MFA/3107/2018 · 2026-01-13

D K Singh, S Rachaiah

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2026-DB MFA No. 3107 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3107 OF 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHIVAMURTHI S/O VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR9S 2. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O SHIVAMURTHI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O GOPALAPURA ROAD CHITRADURGA AT PRESENT: C/O GANESHRAO BEHIND KUKUWADESHWARI TEMPLE N.S.ROAD,MARATARA BEEDI CHANNAGIRI - 577 213. DAVANAGERE DISTRICT &APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. GANESH R S/O RAJAPPA, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2026-DB MFA No. 3107 of 2018 AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS DRIVER & OWNER OF PULSAR MOTOR BIKE BEARING REG.NO.KA.16/X-1000 R/O NEAR DURUGAMMA TEMPLE, MATADA KURUBARAHATTI CHITRADURGA CITY CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT 2. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., S.M.TAWAR, 2ND STAGE, 11TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUMAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 16.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.126/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, CHANNAGIRI, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2026-DB MFA No. 3107 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T at Channagiri in M.V.C No.126/2016. 2. The father of the deceased Ashwini had filed FIR alleging that her daughter was kidnapped by one Ganesh and after sexually assaulting her, he killed her. Thereafter, the claim petition came to be filed by the father alleging that deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA-16/X-1000 on 14.12.2014, which was driven by said Ganesh and met with an accident. As the same was driven in a rash and negligent manner, the rider of the motorcycle lost control over it and the deceased Ashwini fell down from the motorcycle suffering from grievous injuries on her head and died on the way to Shivamogga Hospital. 3. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2026-DB MFA No. 3107 of 2018 <i. Whether the petitioners prove that the death of the S.Ashwini D/o Shivamurthi, was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Pulsar motor bike bearing Reg. No.KA-16/X-1000 i.e., 1st respondent on 14.12.2014 at about 06-00 p.m. at N.H.-13, in between Channagiri - Benkikere Village road, Channagiri Taluk? ii. Whether the respondent No.1 prove that he is not liable to pay the compensation? iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom? iv . What order or award?= 4. Having considered the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has held that no mechanical defect or any sign of accident was found in the motorcycle. Except head injury, no other injuries were noticed in the post mortem report. 5. Considering the fact that earlier the father of the deceased himself had lodged the complaint against Ganesh which was registered under Section 363, 376 and 302 of IPC, the accident was highly suspicious and no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2026-DB MFA No. 3107 of 2018 material was placed on record to substantiate the allegations of the accident. 6. The learned Tribunal, therefore, answered the issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed the claim petition. 7. We have perused the original records. Except head injury, no other injuries were sustained by the deceased. The forensic examination of the vehicle would suggest no mark of an accident. 8. Therefore, we do not find that, the learned Tribunal has committed an error which requires an interference of this Court. Hence, we dismiss this appeal. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23