Karnataka High Court
Shri.Bilaso Shamrao Voder vs Smt.Chandrakala on 22 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5862
MFA No. 103139 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 103571 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103139 OF 2017 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103571 OF 2016 (MV)
IN MFA NO. 103139/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.CHANDRAKALA W/O KADAM LONDE,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: H.NO.21, GANGWADI,
SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010.
2. KADAM S/O ABDUL LONDE,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: H.NO.21, GANGWADI,
SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PB PAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.GEETHA KM @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI AND:
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
1. MANGALA S/O KALGOUDA CHOUGALE,
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.28 12:39:14
+0530
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: H.NO.55, SHIVABASAV NAGAR,
SECTOR NO.2, GANGAWADI, BELAGAVI-590010.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
MADIWALE ARCADE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001.
3. SHRI BALASO SHAMRAO VODER,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: PLOT NO.12/20, SAVITRI NIVAS,
SARTHAK KALANAGAR SANGALI,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5862
MFA No. 103139 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 103571 of 2016
HC-KAR
DIST: SANGALI-416416, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SS KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 26.12.2016 PASSED BY IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT BELAGAVI IN
MVC NO.2738/2014 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BY HOLDING THAT THE INSURANCE
COMPANY IS LIABLE TO PAY THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO. 103571/2016:
BETWEEN:
SHRI BALASO SHAMRAO VODER,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O PLOT NO.12/20, SAVITRI NIVAS,
SARTHAK KALANAGAR, SANGALI,
DIST. SANGALI-416416, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.CHANDRAKALA W/O KADAM LONDE,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: H.NO.21, GANGWADI,
SHIVABASAVANAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010.
2. KADAM S/O ABDUL LONDE,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: H.NO.21, GANGWADI,
SHIVABASAVANAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010.
3. MANGALA S/O KALGOUDA CHOUGALE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: H.NO.55, SHIVABASAV NAGAR,
SECTOR NO.2 GANGAWADI, BELAGAVI-590010.
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5862
MFA No. 103139 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 103571 of 2016
HC-KAR
MADIWALE ARCADE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PB PAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.GEETA KM., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI SS KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 12.07.2016 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, IN MVC NO.2738/2014 BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
& ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 12.07.2016 passed by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi1 in MVC no.2738/2014, these appeals are filed.
2. While MFA no.103571/2016 is filed by owner of vehicle challenging finding of Tribunal on apportionment of liability, MFA no.103139/2017 is filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation.
1 For short, 'Tribunal' -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5862 MFA No. 103139 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 103571 of 2016 HC-KAR
3. Sri Ashok A. Naik, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by owner of vehicle challenging finding of Tribunal on apportionment of liability. It was stated that at 07.30 p.m. on 06.03.2011 when Nagaraj was a pillion rider on motorcycle no.KA-22/EF-0391 proceeding towards Miraj-Maishal Road near Narawadkar Petrol Pump, driver of Car no.MH-14X-5037 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle. In accident, Nagaraj sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment. Alleging loss of dependency on account of his untimely death, his parents filed claim application under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 19232.
4. Despite service of notice, owner of offending motorcycle did not appear. Insurer/owner of car opposed claim petition on all grounds.
5. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues, additional issues and recorded evidence. On consent of claimants, claimant no.2 deposed as PW1 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P10. Official of insurer was examined as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R8.
2 For short, 'MV Act' -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5862 MFA No. 103139 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 103571 of 2016 HC-KAR
6. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred due to contributory negligence of rider of motorcycle as well as driver of car, apportioned negligence to extent of 50% each and thereafter, passed award determining total compensation of Rs.4,79,700/- and holding claimant entitled for 50% i.e. Rs.2,39,850/- with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved thereby, present appeals were filed.
7. It was submitted claim petition was filed under Section 163A of MV Act and as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar and Anr.3, has held that in case of a claim petition under Section 163A of MV Act, Tribunal would not be required to adjudicate on question of actionable negligence. Therefore, passing of award holding driver of car and rider of motorcycle equally negligent and apportioning liability equally against insurer of motorcycle and driver of car was not justified and sought for allowing application.
8. On other hand, Sri PB Pawar, learned counsel for appellant in MFA No.103139/2017 submitted that appeal was 3 (2019) 12 SCC 398 -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5862 MFA No. 103139 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 103571 of 2016 HC-KAR by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted maximum monthly income could be considered in a claim petition under Section 163A of MV Act mentioned in II schedule was Rs.40,000/- per annum. Tribunal ought to have considered same and passed award, failure had led to inadequate award and sought enhancement. He relied on decision of this Court in case of Smt.Renuka Mahabaleshwar Bhat and Anr. v. Azeez Rahman S/o. Mohammad Shafi Shaikh and Anr.4, to contend that under similar circumstances this Court had considered monthly income at Rs.40,000/- per annum and passed award and seeks for passing similar award.
9. On other hand, Sri SS Koliwad, learned counsel for insurer of motorcycle opposed both appeals. It was submitted though, claim petition was under Section 163A of MV Act and as claimant would not be required to establish actionable negligence, material on record would indicate that charge sheet was filed against driver of car. Without considering material on record, Tribunal apportioned negligence to extent of 50% each against rider of motorcycle and driver of car. Therefore, there 4 2024:KHC-D:4796 (MFA no.102120/16 C/w. MFA no.102901/2015) -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5862 MFA No. 103139 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 103571 of 2016 HC-KAR was no error in judgment passed by Tribunal calling for interference.
10. It was submitted, in respect of same accident in MVC no.2058/2011 passed by Fast Track Court-III, Belagavi disposed off on 07.06.2014, appellant/owner of car was held liable to pay entire compensation. And even MFA no.102380/2014 filed by claimant for enhancement of compensation and MFA Crob no.100108/2016 filed by owner of car were got dismissed as settled between parties. Thereby, apportionment of liability against owner had attained finality. On said ground sought dismissal of appeal.
11. Heard learned counsel for parties, perused impugned judgment, award and record.
12. From above, points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether Tribunal was justified in apportionment of negligence even in a claim petition filed under Section 163A of MV Act?
2. Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5862 MFA No. 103139 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 103571 of 2016 HC-KAR
13. Point no.1: It is settled law that in a claim petition under Section 163A of MV Act, claimant need not establish actionable negligence and that claim under Section 163A of MV Act cannot be converted by insurer into a claim under Section 166 of MV Act by urging contentions on negligence by respondents. However, it is seen that in respect of any claim petition arising out of same accident filed under Section 166 of MV Act, Tribunal had held driver of car to be solely negligent for causing accident and fastened liability on owner. Appeal against said award for enhancement and owner's challenge against liability came to be dismissed as settled.
14. In view of above, finding of Tribunal on liability attained finality. Though, in claim petition under Section 163A of MV Act Tribunal need not arrive at finding on negligence, in view of settled law in respect of all claims arising from same accident, negligence/liability has to be uniform. But, as insurer has not filed appeal, finding of Tribunal is confirmed. Accordingly, point no.1 is answered in affirmative.
15. Point no.2: Only ground urged for enhancement of compensation is monthly income. Though learned counsel for -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5862 MFA No. 103139 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 103571 of 2016 HC-KAR claimant relied upon decision in Smt.Renuka Mahabaleshwar Bhat (supra), it is seen that claimant in said case had claimed monthly earning at ₹3,300/-, but Tribunal had considered monthly income at ₹3,000/- and same was considered at ₹40,000/- by this Court, but without laying ratio nor assigning specific reason. Besides, Tribunal in instant case has considered income as claimed at ₹3,300/- per month. It is seen that award under other heads are in conformity with II Schedule. In view of above, there would be no scope for modification. Point no.2 is answered in negative.
16. In view of above, following:
ORDER i. Appeals are dismissed.
ii. Amount in deposit in owner's appeal is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for payment.
iii. Balance amount to be deposited by owner/insurer before Tribunal within six weeks.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5862 MFA No. 103139 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 103571 of 2016 HC-KAR iv. On deposit, Tribunal would be required to apportion and disburse compensation as per directions contained in impugned award.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE SMM-upto para 14 CLK-para 15 to till end CT:VP/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8