CHANNABASAPPA @ CHANNABASANAGOUDA vs NINGANAGOUDA S/O. SOMANAGOUDA PATIL

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17961
MFA No. 101122 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020076562017



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101122 OF 2017

(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

CHANNABASAPPA @ CHANNABASANAGOUDA
S/O. BASANAGOUDA MUDIGOUDAR
AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE
R/O. HIREKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST:HAVERI-581111
…APPELLANT






(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. NINGANAGOUDA S/O. SOMANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. HULLATTI TQ:HIREKERUR
DIST:HAVERI-581111

2.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR
HUBBALLI-580020

3. KHASIMALI S/O GOUSEMODINSAB BALIKAI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL, KOD,




YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR

Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2026.11.04
16:37:45 +0530

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17961
MFA No. 101122 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020076562017


TQ: HIREKERUR
DIST:HAVERI-581111

4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
AM ARCADA, C.G. HOSPITAL ROAD,
NEAR VIDYARTHI BHAVAN,
DAVANGERE.
…RESPONDENTS
(SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M HOSAMANI, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED;
SRI. RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADV. FOR R3;
SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R4 (VK))

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE
HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.M.A.C.T., HIREKERUR
AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE
HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.M.A.C.T. HIREKERUR IN
MVC NO. 71/2013 DTD 03.12.2016 AND BY AWARDING
COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANT OR IN THE LATERNATIVE
REMAND THE MATTER BACK FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND COST OF THE APPEAL AND ANY
OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIR IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17961
MFA No. 101122 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020076562017


ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
03.12.2016 in MVC No.71/2013 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Hirekerur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short), the
claimant-appellant herein has preferred this appeal seeking to
modify the same by awarding compensation or in the
alternative to remand the matter.
2. The facts of the case are that on 15.11.2012 at
about 10.30 a.m., when the claimant was riding his
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/R-8277, on
Ranebennur-Hirekerur road, opposite to Veerabhadreshwar
Petrol Bunk, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-27/S-309, abruptly entered the said road and crashed
into the motorcycle of the claimant. At the time of the
accident, rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
27/U-2533, travelling on the same route, without observing
traffic rules, dashed to these motorcycles. In the said
accident, claimant had sustained grievous injuries and had
taken treatment. The owner of the petrol bunk had lodged
complaint against riders of all three motorcycles.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17961
MFA No. 101122 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020076562017


3. Respondent No.1 i.e., the owner of motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-27/S-309 has appeared before the
Tribunal, but has not filed his objections. The respondent
No.2-Insurance Company of the said vehicle filed objections
contending that there was no negligence on the part of the
rider of the motorcycle insured by it and a criminal case has
been registered against the riders of other two motorcycles.
Respondent No.1 had no valid driving licence at the time of
the accident. It was further averred that on account of this
breach, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the
compensation.
4. Respondent No.3, the owner of the vehicle bearing
registration No. KA 27/U-2533 remained ex-parte before the
Tribunal. The insurance company of the said vehicle i.e., the
respondent No.4 herein, appeared before the Tribunal and
filed their objections stating that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycles bearing
registration Nos.KA-27/S-309 and KA-27/R-8277. Further
averred that the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-27/U-

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17961
MFA No. 101122 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020076562017


2533 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as
the rider was riding the same with two pillion riders.
5. After considering the oral evidence of PW1 and

PW2, Ex.P1 to 59 produced by the claimant, evidence of RW1
and RW2 and documents at Exs.R1 to 4, the Tribunal
dismissed the claim petition inter alia on the grounds that the
claimant failed to prove negligence of other riders and to
implead his rider and insurer. Further, the claimant by
pleading guilty, admitted his negligence in a criminal case and
therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant contended before
this Court that the claimant need not prove negligence since
he has filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the M.V.Act’) and if more than
one vehicle is involved in the accident, it is prerogative of the
claimant to proceed against one or all vehicles involved. It was
prayed that after considering the injuries suffered by the
claimant, compensation may be awarded by fixing joint
liability on insurance company of both motorcycles.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17961
MFA No. 101122 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020076562017


7. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent No.4
reiterated his contentions before the Tribunal and further
claimed that PW1 has not sought compensation from
respondent No.4. Therefore, even if compensation is awarded
to the claimant, it is the respondent No.2, who is liable to pay
the compensation.
8. At the outset, it is important to note here the
principles laid down in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others
1
Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Baroda
.
and Shivaji
and Another Vs. Divisional Manager, United India
2
Insurance Company Limited .
9. In the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni noted
supra , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that even if there is
negligence on the part of the claimant, he shall be entitled for
compensation. For easy reference, Paragraph 66 of the said
judgment is extracted herein below:
“66. We may notice that Section 167 of the Act
provides that where death of, or bodily injury to, any
person gives rise to claim of compensation under the Act
and also under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923,
he cannot claim compensation under both the Acts. The
Motor Vehicles Act contains different expressions as, for
example, "under the provision of the Act", "provisions of

1
(2004) 5 SCC 385
2
(2019) 12 SCC 395

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17961
MFA No. 101122 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020076562017


this Act", "under any other provisions of this Act" or "any
other law or otherwise". In Section 163-A, the expression
"notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any
other law for the time being in force" has been used,
which goes to show that the Parliament intended to insert
a non obstante clause of wide nature which would mean
that the provisions of Section 163-A would apply despite
the contrary provisions existing in the said Act or any
other law for the time being in force. Section 163-A of the
Act covers cases where even negligence is on the part of
the victim. It is by way of an exception to Section 166 and
the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of.”

10. In the case of Shivaji noted supra , the Hon’ble
Apex Court held that, if insurer is permitted to raise a defense
of negligence, it would defeat the very purpose and intent of
Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. The relevant portion is
extracted herein below:
“4. The issue which arises before us is no longer
res integra and is covered by a recent judgment of three
judges of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Sunil Kumar , wherein it was held that to permit a
defence of negligence of the claimant by the insurer
and/or to understand Section 163-A of the Act as
contemplating such a situation, would be inconsistent
with the legislative object behind introduction of this
provision, which is “final compensation within a limited
time frame on the basis of the structured formula to
overcome situations where the claims of compensation
on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long
time”. The Court observed that if an insurer was
permitted to raise a defence of negligence under Section
163A of the Act, it would “bring a proceeding under
Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under
Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-
contradictory but also defeat the very legislative
intention”. Consequently, it was held that in a

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17961
MFA No. 101122 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020076562017


proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, the insurer
cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the
victim to counter a claim for compensation.”

11. Therefore, this Court will not venture into the
question of negligence and holds that the Tribunal has erred in
holding that the claim petition is not maintainable since
claimant has pleaded guilty in C.C.No.41/2013.
12. It is pertinent to note here that the learned counsel
for the respondent No.4 has contended that PW1 has
specifically deposed in his chief-examination that there is
negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-27/S-309. Upon adverting to FIR at Ex.P1
as well as the charge sheet at Ex.P3, it becomes clear that
Crime No.196/2012 was registered against the riders of all the
vehicles including the rider of the motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-27/S-309. Thereafter, charge sheet has
been filed and after taking cognizance numbered as
C.C.41/2013.
13. In the present case, though the learned counsel for
respondent No.4 has contended that the claimant has not
claimed compensation from respondent No.4, in the chief-

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17961
MFA No. 101122 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020076562017


examination of claimant, the claimant has specifically deposed
that respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable and
respondent Nos.2 and 4 are equally liable to pay
compensation.
14. Lastly, it is important to note here that the claimant
has sought for enhancement of compensation amount and
hence, considering all the above discussed facts, keeping in
view the decision in Ram murthi and others Vs. Punjab
3
State Electricity Board , I hold that the claimant is entitled
for a global compensation of ₹2,50,000/-. In the above-
mentioned case, the Hon'ble Apex Court extended the benefits
of Section 164 of M.V. Act to the claimants therein, even
though the accident had occurred on 12.04.1994 i.e., prior to
the substitution of Section 164 of MV Act and repealing of
Section 163-A of the M.V, Act. The said provision provides
compensation of ₹5,00,000/- in case of death and ₹2,50,000/-
in case of grievous injuries.
15. Further, the division bench of this Court in the case
4
of Smt. Pratima and others Vs. Mr. Thalkin Ahamed and

3
Civil Appeal No.7143/2022
4
MFA No. 101145/2021 (Dharwad bench)

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17961
MFA No. 101122 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020076562017


Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the cases of Laxmi Vs.
5 6
Durgappa , Siddhappa Vs. Mohan , Babu Vs. Mallikarjun
7 8
S Ramadurg , Santosh Vs. Mahesh and Others have
followed the above mentioned judgement of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Ram murthi .
16. In light of the above, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) MFA No.101122/2017 is allowed .
(ii) The judgment and award dated 03.12.2016
in MVC No.71/2013 passed by the Senior
Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Hirekerur is set-aside .
(iii) The claimant is entitled to compensation of
₹2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition till
realization.

5
MFA 105085/2023 (Dharwad bench)
6
MFA 102650/2014 (Dharwad bench)
7
MFA 101086/2021 (Dharwad bench)
8
MFA 100028/2022 (Dharwad bench)

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17961
MFA No. 101122 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020076562017


(iv) The respondents No.1 to 4 are jointly and
severally liable and insurance Companies
i.e., respondents No.2 and 4 shall deposit
the enhanced compensation, together with
accrued interest, at the ratio of 50:50,
before the jurisdictional Tribunal within a
period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
(v) Registry to draw modified award
accordingly.

Sd/-
(USHARANI)
JUDGE




KGK /CT:CNB
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 40