Karnataka High Court
Pundlik S/O Laxuman vs Kamalakar And Anr on 6 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491
MFA No. 201918 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201918 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
PUNDLIK S/O LAXUMAN,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR (NOW NIL),
R/O VILLAGE MADGOOL,
TQ. HUMNABAD & DIST. BIDAR,
NOW RESIDING AT LABOUR COLONY,
BIDAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KAMALAKAR S/O MANIKAPPA MOGA,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCCU: LABOUR,
Digitally signed
by
R/O VILLAGE MUSTARI, TQ. HUMNABAD,
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA
SHIVALEELA UDAGI DIST. BIDAR-585 401.
DATTATRAYA Location: HIGH
UDAGI COURT OF
KARNATAKA
Date:
2025.03.19
12:03:28 -0700 2. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR,
SHIVAJI CHOWK, ABOVE AXIS BANK,
KINGS CORNER, OSMANABAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER,
1ST FLOOR, BASAVSRI COMPLEX,
STADIUM ROAD, BIDAR-585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 04.02.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491
MFA No. 201918 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2019 PASSED BY THE ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT BIDAR, IN MVC
NO.578/2016 AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and the learned counsel for respondents.
2. Though the matter is at the stage of admission, by consent of both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 13.10.2013 the petitioner and one Prabhureddy were proceeding on motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-32/L-8728 from Basanthpur village towards Madgool. The petitioner was the pillion rider and Prabhureddy was riding the said motorcycle. At about 6.30 p.m., near the village Itga, the -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491 MFA No. 201918 of 2019 motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 insured by respondent No.2 bearing Reg.No.KA-39/K-4344 came from opposite direction and dashed to the motorcycle on which the petitioner was traveling. The petitioner and his companion fell down and suffered injuries and they were shifted to C.H.C.Chitaguppa and a complaint was also filed before Chitaguppa Police in Crime No.160/2013. In the said complaint, the allegations were made against the rider - Prabhureddy that he was riding the motorcycle under intoxication of liquor. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V.Act) seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/K-4344.
4. The petition was opposed and resisted by respondent No.2 - Insurance Company contending that the negligence was on the part of the rider - Prabhureddy and the petitioner has not produced the driving licence of the said Prabhureddy. It also denied the liability on the ground that the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491 MFA No. 201918 of 2019 39/K-4344 was also not having a driving licence and the compensation claimed is highly imaginary and exorbitant. However, the Insurance Company admitted that a case was registered by Chitaguppa Police but alleged that it was to help the petitioner. It was contended that it is a case of contributory negligence and therefore the owner and insurer of the vehicle on which the petitioner was traveling was also to be impleaded.
5. On the basis of the above contentions, the appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 were marked in evidence. The Doctor who has assessed the disability was examined as PW.2. No evidence was led on behalf of respondents.
6. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that though the petition filed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act, the said petition is not maintainable against the wrong persons. It was held that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491 MFA No. 201918 of 2019 Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Lalitabai and others1, the petition is not maintainable, by holding that the rider Prabhureddy was riding the motorcycle under the influence of alcohol. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that the petitioner was the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-32/L-8728 along with Prabhureddy. The said Prabhureddy was alleged to be riding the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The complaint has been filed against the said Prabhureddy. Even then, when a petition filed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act, the claim against the other motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/K- 4344 is maintainable and the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition. It is contended that the reasoning of the Tribunal in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment are totally 1 2013 ACJ 2304 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491 MFA No. 201918 of 2019 unsustainable in law. Therefore, he seek adequate compensation to be awarded to the petitioner.
8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Manvendrareddy would submit that when the petition under Section 163A of the M.V.Act has been filed, negligence is immaterial and moreover, for the petitioner, it was the case of composite negligence. Therefore, he also concurred with the proposition that the Tribunal has erred in interpreting the provision of Section 163A of the M.V.Act.
9. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was a pillion rider on the motorcycle which was ridden by one Prabhureddy. In the FIR, there was an allegation against said Prabhureddy that he was riding the motorcycle under the influence of alcohol. Moreover, there were two pillion riders on the motorcycle. For that reason, the petition was filed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was the pillion rider and as such, it was a case of composite negligence for him. In the result, -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491 MFA No. 201918 of 2019 there was no necessity of invoking the provisions of Section 163A of the M.V.Act also.
10. Be that as it may, the Tribunal holds in para 14 of the judgment that the rider of the motorcycle was under
the influence of alcohol. It also observes that if the petitioner had impleaded the rider of the bike, then the proof of negligence cannot be insisted, but it goes under the premise that when a petition filed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act, the negligence of the other vehicle has to be proved. This proposition adopted by the Tribunal appears to be totally incorrect.
11. It is pertinent to note that respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/K-4344, admitted that their rider was not prosecuted for negligent driving. For that purpose, it appears that the provision of Section 163A of the M.V.Act was invoked by the appellant. As noted supra, it being a case of composite negligence, he was at liberty to go -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491 MFA No. 201918 of 2019 against any of the tort feasor. Under these circumstances, dismissal of the petition is also not sustainable in law.
12. The judgment relied by the Tribunal in Lalitabai's case referred to supra is not at all relevant for the present case. Even then, the Tribunal observes that the proof of negligence cannot be insisted as laid down by this Court and this Court dismissed the petition. Thus, it is evident that the impugned judgment and award cannot be better described than a perverse one.
13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the petitioner had suffered fracture of right femur as could be seen from discharge summaries at Exs.P.7 and P.8. He was treated with ORIF and he was inpatient from 14.10.2013 to 23.10.2013 and then one day on 09.11.2014. The petitioner claims himself to be a labourer, aged about 28 years. PW.2 in his testimony states that the petitioner has a disability of 26% to the right lower limb. Appreciating the avocation of the petitioner, the functional disability of the petitioner is assessed at 8%. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491 MFA No. 201918 of 2019
14. The petition has been filed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act and therefore the annual income of the petitioner has to be restricted to `40,000/-. Hence, the loss of future income is calculated as `40,000/-x8%x17 =54,400/-.
15. As per the schedule, the petitioner is also entitled for a sum of `5,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering'. The petitioner has produced the medical bills worth to `14,384/- and the same is rounded off to `15,000/- and awarded to him.
16. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation under the following heads :-
Sl.No. Heads Compensation
1. Loss of future income `54,400/-
2. Pain and suffering `5,000/-
3. Medical expenses `15,000/-
Total `74,400/-
17. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed and hence, the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1491
MFA No. 201918 of 2019
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is set-aside.
(iii) The appellant-petitioner is entitled for a sum of `74,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
(iv) The respondent No.2- Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation along with interest within a period of 06 weeks from the date of this judgment, as provided under Section 168(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(v) On such deposit being made, the entire amount be released to the petitioner.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE SN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CT: AK