Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103686 OF 2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBLI POLICY NO:35101031126132377990, VALID FROM: 18/12/2012 TO 17/12/2013 NOW REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, HUBBALLI-580023. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE) AND:
GIRIJA A. 1. SHRI CHAMANSAB BYAHATTI S/O. HASANSAB JANGAMANAKOPPA, Digitally signed by GIRIJA AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: NIL,A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD R/O: YATTINAHALLI, BENCH Date: 2025.11.05 12:39:18 +0530 TQ: HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
2. MAMUNABI W/O. CHAMANASAB JANGAMANAKOPPA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O: YATTINAHALLI, TQ: HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110. -2-
3. MALUNBI D/O CHAMANASAB JANGAMANAKOPPA, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: YATTINAHALLI, TQ: HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
4. DADAPEER S/O. CHAMANASAB JANGAMANAKOPPA, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: YATTINAHALLI, TQ: HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
5. SUBHASH
S/O. SAHEBRAO BADADAL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO.6, PRATHAMESH APPT, UDYOG NAGAR, CHINCHAWAD, PUNE-411033. TQ & DIST: PUNE, STATE MAHARASHTRA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; NOTICE TO R1-R4 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET-ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.04.2016 IN M.V.C.
NO.123/2014 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HAVERI, SO FOR AS IT RELATES TO FASTENING OF LIABILITY AND QUANTUM ON THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 THEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3- CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
1. Heard Sri.Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Mr. Chandrasekhar M. Hosamani, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. Being aggrieved by the findings that were given by the
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haveri, in MVC No.123/2014 dated 28.04.2016, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against which 80% liability is fixed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the
accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorbike by the deceased Abdul Khadar. Though such a plea was taken and was established before the Tribunal by the appellant, yet the Tribunal fastened the liability to an extent of 80% against the -4- appellant and therefore, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the appeal and exonerate the appellant from liability to pay compensation.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 seeks to dispose of the matter on merits.
5. The manner of happening of accident as projected by
respondents 1 to 4/claimants before the Tribunal is that, on 19.02.2013, at about 01.30 p.m., when the deceased Abdul Khadar (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the deceased’ for brevity) was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/W-8921, and while he was riding the motorcycle along with two other pillion riders, a car bearing registration No.MH- 14/DT-3633 approached the motorcycle from the opposite direction and dashed against it, due to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. -5-
6. It is not in dispute that, basing on the complaint
given, a case was registered against the driver of the car only, and a charge sheet was also laid. The Tribunal, perceiving the fact that three persons were present over the motorcycle at the relevant time, and
also considering the attending circumstances, held
that negligence to an extent of 20% can be attributed against the deceased. Thus, liability to an extent of 80% was fixed upon the driver of the offending car, and thereby, the appellant, who is the insurer of the said car, was ordered to pay compensation to the claimants to that extent. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings given by the Tribunal regarding the aspect of negligence.
7. The Tribunal, having discussed at length with regard
to the merits of the matter, came to a conclusion that the negligence that can be attributable against the deceased is 20% and that the contribution of the driver of the car which is involved in the accident is to -6- an extent of 80%. This Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court ultimately holds that the appeal lacks merit.
8. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.
9. Amount, if any, in deposit, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34