- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13240 M.F.A. No.584/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.584/2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. M. KAVITHA W/O LATE H. NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 2. N. KUMAR S/O LATE H. NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 3. N. PRATHAP S/O LATE H. NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. 4. N. ROOPESH S/O LATE H. NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS. 5. KUMARI RAMYA D/O LATE H. NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT NO.66 7TH MAIN ROAD PIPELINE EAST KASTHURIBHA NAGAR BENGALURU 560026. 6. SMT. NAGAMMA [SINCE DEAD, LR'S ALREADY ON RECORD AND HENCE DELETED]. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADV.,) Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13240 M.F.A. No.584/2018 AND: 1. SRI. H. RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.66, 7TH MAIN ROAD PIPELINE ROAD EAST KASTURIBHA NAGAR BENGALURU 560026. 2. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MANDYA BRANCH NO.1576 ST FLOOR, V.V. ROAD MANDYA CITY MANDYA 571404. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAMATHA S. SHANKAR, ADV., FOR R2 V/O/DTD:30.06.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) ****** THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1989, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.03.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.243/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MADDUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13240 M.F.A. No.584/2018 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 08.03.2011 passed in MVC.No.243/2009 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & MACT, Maddur, (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Sri.Vasanthapp, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the wife, children and mother of late H.Narayana filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'M.V.Act'). Later, they filed a memo to treat the said petition under Section 163A of the MV Act, which was allowed by the judgment and award dated 23.10.2010 passed in MVC No.243/2009 and compensation of Rs.3,69,500/- was awarded with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13240 M.F.A. No.584/2018 petition till realization within 30 days. It is further submitted that the insurance company has filed a review petition seeking review of the aforesaid judgment and award dated 23.10.2010 and the said review petition was allowed under the impugned judgment. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the review petition without appreciating the fact that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to review the judgment dated 23.10.2010. It is contented that the claimants are even entitled to the compensation under the package policy to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, he seeks to consider the same by allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, Smt.Mamatha S.Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - insurance company supports the impugned judgment and submits that the Tribunal has appreciated the error committed by it and reviewed its judgment, which does not call for any interference. It is further submitted that the deceased was a driver and not the owner of the vehicle and due to his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13240 M.F.A. No.584/2018 negligence the accident has caused, hence he is not entitled for any compensation. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record indicate that one Sri.H.Narayana, died in a road accident that occurred on 09.11.2009 and the wife, children and mother of deceased H.Narayana filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and after allowing the memo filed by the claimants, treated the said petition as the one filed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act and proceeded to award compensation Rs.3,69,500/- with the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The records indicate that respondent No.2 - insurance company filed a review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC seeking to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13240 M.F.A. No.584/2018 review the judgment and award dated 23.10.2010 passed in MVC No.243/2009, which came to be allowed by the Tribunal under the impugned judgment. 7. The perusal of the judgment clearly indicates that the deceased was a driver and due to his negligence the accident is caused and he has died in the said accident. Taking note of the said aspect and considering the decision of this Court reported in 2010 KAR MAC 466 KAR held that no other vehicle was involved in the accident and therefore, the deceased was not entitled for compensation and proceeded to award Rs.50,000/- as a compensation under Section 140 of the M.V.Act. 8. The evidence on record clearly indicate that the accident is caused due to the fault of the deceased driver and by appreciating the said aspect, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- with interest with the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the amount within 30 days by exercising Section 140 of the M.V.Act. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13240 M.F.A. No.584/2018 The claim for package policy or compulsory personal accident cover (CPA) cannot be considered as the deceased was the driver and the accident is caused due to his own negligence. I do not find any error or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal calling for interference in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly, same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16