THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER vs SHRI. FAKKIRAPPA BHIMAPPA HABBANAVAR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100021 OF 2024 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
PLOT NO.8 NEAR SAI TEMPLE VIJAYANAGAR,
SHIVAGIRI COLONY GANESHPUR
BELAGAVI-591108.
(INSURER OF LMV CAR BEARING NO.
KA-22/Z-3462
POLICY NO.211200-31-2022-76914
VALID FROM 23.07.2021 TO 22.07.2022
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI. FAKKIRAPPA BHIMAPPA HABBANAVAR
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: HULIKERI DHARWAD-580014
NOW AT C/O. RAVI BASAVANNEPPA
HURAKANNAVAR,
R/O. UGARKHOD-591115.
TQ. KITTUR.

2. KUM TANU FAKKIRAPPA HABBANAVAR
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O: HULIKERI, DHARWAD-580014,
NOW AT C/O. RAVI BASAVANNEPPA
HURAKANNAVAR,
R/O. UGARKHOD-591115.
TQ: KITTUR

3. KUM DRAKSHAYANI FAKKIRAPPA HABBANAVAR
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: HULIKERI,
DHARWAD-580014,
NOW AT C/O. RAVI BASAVANNEPPA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024


HURAKANNAVAR,
R/O. UGARKHOD-591115
TQ: KITTUR.

4. KUM RADHIKA FAKKIRAPPA HABBANAVAR
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: HULIKERI
DHARWAD-580014,
NOW AT C/O RAVI BASAVANNEPPA
HURAKANNAVAR,
R/O. UGARKHOD-591115.
TQ: KITTUR.

5. KUMAR GANGADHAR FAKKIRAPPA HABBANAVAR
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: HULIKERI, DHARWAD-580014
NOW AT C/O RAVI BASAVANNEPPA
HURAKANNAVAR
R/O UGARKHOD-591115
TQ: KITTUR
(RESPONDENT NO.2, 3 AND 5 ARE
MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MINOR
GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1)

6. SRI. MAHENDRAKUMAR BASAVARAJ PADMANNAVAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NIDASOSHI-591225
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
(OWNER OF LMV CAR BEARING
NO. KA-22/Z-3462)
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MADAN MOHAN M. KHASNNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. MALLIKARJUN B. MADANALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS HEAR THE PARTIES AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.11.2023 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT,
BAILHONGAL IN MVC NO.1426/2022 BY EXONERATING THE
LIABILITY FIXED ON THE APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANY BY
ACCEPTING THE GROUNDS MADE OUT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL
BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024



THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 09.11.2023
passed in MVC No.1426/2022 by the Senior Civil Judge and
M.A.C.T., Bailhongal, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), respondent
No.2-Insurance Company before the Tribunal filed this appeal
challenging the liability fixed by the Tribunal to pay the
compensation to the petitioners.

2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their
ranking before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.06.2022 at
about 9:00 p.m., the deceased Smt. Kalavati Fakkirappa
Habbannavar was returning to Bogur village on a motorcycle
along with Smt.Sushila Arjun Harijan and Raju Kallappa
Bharametri after selling fruits. Near Venkatapur village on PB
Road, NH-4, a car bearing No.KA-22/Z-3462, allegedly driven
the vehicle rash and negligent manner, dashed against their
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024


motorcycle. Kalavati sustained grievous injuries and died on the
spot. Her body was shifted to Government Hospital, Dharwad,
for post-mortem. The deceased was aged about 34 years and
was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by selling fruits.

4. Accordingly, petitioner filed a claim petition claiming
compensation.

5. Upon notice respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared
through their counsels and filed their objections.

6. The Respondent No.1 denied the averments of the
petition and contended that the claim petition is false and
baseless. He admitted that he was the owner of the car bearing
No.KA.22/Z-3462 at the time of the accident. He alleged that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of
the motorcycle rider, who suddenly moved to the wrong side
without giving a signal. He denied the deceased’s age, income,
occupation and the manner of the accident. He further
contended that the car was insured with respondent No.2 and
that, if compensation was awarded, the liability should be
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024


fastened on the insurance company. Hence, he prayed for
dismissal of the petition.

7. The Respondent No.2 denied the averments of the
petition and contended that the car bearing No.KA.22/Z-3462
was not insured with them. They also denied the deceased’s
injuries and funeral expenses. It was further contended that
the motorcycle rider was charge-sheeted for violations under
the Motor Vehicles Act and that the car driver did not possess a
valid driving licence. Hence, respondent No.2 denied its liability
and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

8. On the basis of said contentions of the parties, the
Tribunal has framed the following issues:
“ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioners prove that Smt. Kalawati
Fakkirappa Habbannavar succumbed to accidental
injuries in the road accident, that occurred on 26-
06- 2022 at about 09.00 pm, on the NH-4 PB
Road, on Venkatapur Cross Venkatapur village,
Dharwad when she was proceeding as a pillion
rider on the motorcycle No.KA.24/S-0023 due to
the rash and negligent of driver of LMV Car bearing
registration No.KA.22/Z-3462?
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024


2) Whether the petitioners are entitled 9 MVC
No.1426-2022 for compensation ? If so, how
much? from whom ?
3) What order?”


9. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner himself examined
as PW1 and one eye witness examined as PW2 and got marked
33 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.33. Per contra , respondent No.2
has examined its official witness as RW.1 and got marked
Ex.R.1 and R.2 .

10. On hearing the argument, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition in part by fastening liability on the respondents
and awarded compensation to petitioner No.1 under following
heads:
1 Loss of parental
consortium spousal Rs.44,000/-
consortium
2 Transportation of dead
body and funeral Rs.16,500/-
expenses
3 Loss of dependency Rs.5,94,720/-.
4 Loss of estate Rs16,500/-
Total Amount Rs.6,71,720/-

and the Tribunal awarded compensation to petitioner
Nos.2 to 5 under following heads:
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024


Loss of spousal
1 Rs.44,000/-
consortium
2 Loss of dependency Rs.5,94,720/-
Total Amount Rs.6,38,720/-


11. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company filed this appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.G.N.Raichur,
argued that this accident occurred due to the negligence of the
rider of the motorcycle and abruptly taken turn without giving
any signal; there was no opportunity for the driver of the car to
stop the vehicle; that the accident occurred due to the sole
negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and there is no
negligence on the part of the driver of the car. Further it is
argued that, in the motorcycle, there were two pillion riders,
who were travelling and the rider of the motorcycle was
intoxicated, same is recorded in the Ex.P.3-charge sheet in
column No.16, to the extent of blood alcohol concentration
(EDTA blood) = 158.02 mg/100 mL., and blood alcohol
concentration (Plain blood) = 232.10 mg./100 mL; moreover,
the rider of the motorcycle consumed excess alcohol and he
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024


was not in a position to ride the motorcycle and thereby caused
an accident.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents
herein, Sri.Madhanmohan M. Kannur argued that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car and
dashed to the motorcycle from behind. In the result, the rider
and pillion riders died on the spot the insurance company not
taken up the contention in the objection that accident occurred
as the rider of the motorcycle was intoxicated and not able to
control the motorcycle. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment passed by
this Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs.
Smt.Dyamavva and others in MFA No.20108/2009 dated
14.09.2011. It is argued that the author of the document is not
examined by the insurance company before the Tribunal.
Hence, said document cannot be looked into. Accordingly, pray
for dismissal of the appeal.

14. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials
available on record. The points that would arise for
consideration by this Court are as follows:
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024



(i) Whether the Tribunal justified in fixing the
liability on respondent No.2 to pay the
compensation?

(ii) What order?

15. Points framed by this Court for consideration are
answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : In the affirmative.
Point No.(ii): As per the final order, for the
following:

16. Regarding Point No.(i) : This accident occurred on
26.06.2022 at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased Raju Kallappa
Bharametri was riding the motorcycle along with pillion riders
Smt.Kalavati Fakkirappa Habbannavar and Smt.Sushila Arjun
Harijan on NH-4 and there was accident near Venkatapur
village. According to the petitioner, driver of the car drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
motorcycle from behind, resulting in the accident.

17. Smt.Kalavati Fakkirappa Habbannavar sustained
grievous injury and succumbed to the injury. The petitioner
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024


being legal representative filed the petition claiming
compensation.

18. The claim petition has been filed against owner and
insurer of the car bearing No.KA-22/Z-3462. It is pertinent to
note that in this case, the rider of the motorcycle also died and
the police filed abated charge sheet against him. The manner of
accident is disputed by respondent No.2, but accident is
admitted. The charge sheet also filed against the driver of the
car bearing No.KA-22/Z-3462. The driver was shown as
accused No.1 and the deceased-rider of the motorcycle arrived
as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. Either of the parties have
not challenged the charge sheet. The postmortem report
indicates that, the deceased died due to neurogenic shock
secondary to head injury due to road traffic accident (R.T.A.)
and he also sustained multiple fractures. The death of the
deceased is not in dispute. The only dispute raised by the
insurance company relates to its liability to pay compensation.

19. On perusal of the objection filed by respondent No.2
before the Tribunal, paragraph Nos.1 to 4 is the denial of the
petition averments and in paragraph No.5, the insurance
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024


company taken up a contention that in the event the Tribunal
came to the conclusion that, the insurance company is liable to
pay compensation, then the interest cannot exceed more than
6% per annum. Furthermore, the liability is subject to condition
that the owner of the said vehicle and the driver of the car was
having effective driving license at the time of accident. The
Insurance Company examined its officer as R.W.1. During the
course of cross-examination, R.W.1 admitted that the driver of
the car dashed to the motorcycle from behind and caused an
accident and also he has admitted that, in the charge sheet,
the driver of the car arrayed as accused No.1, but he pleaded
his ignorance that as on the date of accident, car was insured
and policy was valid. In paragraph No.4 of the evidence of
R.W.1 in examination-in-chief he has stated that, the rider of
the motorcycle was not wearing helmet and he has no effective
driving licence and his motorcycle had no insurance policy.

20. Further, no material evidence adduced by the
insurance company to prove that the rider of the motorcycle
was intoxicated and due to his negligence this accident
occurred.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024



21. Respondent No.2 relied on the averments made in
the charge sheet in column No.16, wherein it is mentioned as
follows:
“1) FLMS Report No.RFSLBLG/FLMS/TS/516/2022, Dated:
30-08-2022.
Ethyl alcohol was detected in article No.1.
Blood alcohol concentration (EDTA blood) = 158.02
mg/100 mL.
Blood alcohol concentration (Plain blood) = 232.10 mg/100
mL.”

22. Nevertheless, denied that the driver of the car
driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused
an accident. It is not permissible to accept some portion of
contents in the charge sheet and denied the remaining portion.

23. The Ex.R.2 is the policy of the car, which is valid for
the period from 23.07.2021 to midnight of 22.07.2022 and this
accident occurred on 26.06.2022. Thus, on the date of
accident, the car was having valid insurance. It is pertinent to
note that, the insurance company who receives the premium,
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024


covering the risk, cannot shirk the liability in paying the
compensation.

24. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the
judgment of this Court in the case of The Divisional
Controller, K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Sheela and others , in MFA
No.104700/2024 C/w MFA.CROB.No.100039/2025
decided on 12.09.2025 , wherein this Court observed as
follows:
“In our considered view that itself will not
constitute a negligence. The aspect of negligence is
required to be pleaded and proved before the Tribunal
by the Corporation, if they are claiming contributory
negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle.
In the case on hand, there is no evidence on record
available to come to conclusion that the rider of the
motorcycle was negligent and caused the accident.
Merely there were two pillion riders and the rider was
intoxicated cannot be a ground to come to conclusion
that the deceased was negligent. Hence, said
contention was rejected.”

25. In this case, the appellant failed to establish with
cogent material evidence that the rider of the motorcycle
contributed his negligence to the accident and this contention
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024


also not taken up before the Tribunal. Further such contention
has been raised by the appellant before this Court. But on
perusal of records, it clearly reveals that there is no material
evidence placed before the Tribunal to substantiate the
contention. Unless there is no evidence, this Court cannot come
to the conclusion that, there is a contributory negligence on the
part of the rider of the motorcycle.

26. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant
Sri.G.N.Raichur submitted that when there is a charge sheet,
there is no need for the insurance company to prove the
contributory negligence. This Court is of the opinion that,
merely because charge sheet has been filed, it cannot
substantiate the contention that there is a contributory
negligence. It is up to the parties to adduce the evidence
before the Court to prove the negligence.

27. Although, the motorcycle rider was carrying two
pillion riders and the rider was under intoxication, it cannot be
said that he has contributed his negligence. The insurance
company relied on the portion of the contents as extracted
above to show that the rider of the motorcycle was highly
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024


intoxicated and drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent
manner and caused an accident. But, the charge sheet clearly
indicates that the rider of the motorcycle was proceeding ahead
of the car and the driver of the car dashed to the motorcycle
from behind.

28. The contention taken by the appellant herein before
the Tribunal only regarding the rider of the motorcycle that he
was not wearing helmet and riding the motorcycle without
driving license. This contention of the appellant will not
exonerate the liability of the insurance company. Hence, in this
case, the deceased and the petitioner are third parties. On
looking into the evidence available on record, this Court did not
find any reason to allow the appeal.

29. The Tribunal has rightly discussed all the aspects
and this Court did not find any reasons to interfere.

30. With the above discussions, point No.(i) is answered
partly in the affirmative .

31. Regarding Point No.(ii): In view of the findings
on points No.(i), this Court proceeds to pass the following:
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16730
MFA No. 100021 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020001062024


ORDER

i) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is
dismissed with costs.

ii) Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal.


Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE


SSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58