SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 7664

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GEETHA K.B.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O. RAMAPPA KANNAKKANAVAR – Respondent
MFA 102020/2016



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102020 OF 2020 (MV-I)

BETWEEN THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUJATHA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBBALLI, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O. RAMAPPA KANNAKKANAVAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRILCULTURE, R/O. MASUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

DECEASED

2. CHANDRAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA KANNAKKANAVAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MASUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

3. SURESH S/O. RAMAPPA KANNAKKANAVAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MASUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

4. NEELAMMA D/O. RAMAPPA KANNAKKANAVAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MASUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

5. KUMAR S/O. RAMAPPA KANNAKKANAVAR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MASUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

6. H. CHANDRU S/O. HULAGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O. NALAVAGILA, TQ: SHIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIMOGGA (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KA15/K2228)

7. NAGRAJ SHEKAPPA HONNALLI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MASUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. (RIDER OF VEHICLE)

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMIT KADADALLI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R5;

NOTICE TO R6 & R7 ARE SERVED;

R1-DECEASED(LEGAL HEIRS R2-R5 ON RECORD))

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED ON 22/03/2016 BY COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.M.A.C.T. HIREKERUR IN MVC 137/2011 AND ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

Appellant-insurer has filed this appeal under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for setting aside the judgment and award dated 22.03.2016 in MVC No.137/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Hirekerur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming for compensation towards death of husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimants No.2 to 5 by name Ramappa Kannakkanavar, who succumbed to accidental injuries that had taken place on 26.06.2008 at about 08.00 a.m. by involving motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-15/K-2228 on new bus stand of Masur road.

4. The case of claimants in nutshell is that on

26.06.2008 at about 08.00 a.m., Ramappa was going from Masur to attend his agricultural work and at that time rider of motor cycle came from new bus stand of Masur with high speed rashly and negligently and collided with Ramappa and as a result of which, Ramappa fell on the ground and sustained injuries and he was shifted to Primary Health Center, Masur, where he died due to the accidental injuries.

5. It is the contention of claimants that deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 55 years having 8 acres of land, doing agricultural work and milk vending business and was getting income of ₹.20,000/- per month. He had 4 she-buffalos and 4 cows and used to supply 25 liters of milk to KMF Milk Diary and was getting ₹.400/- per day from milk vending business. Claimants being his wife and children were entirely depending upon him and they lost the bread earner of their family and hence claimed compensation under different heads.

6. After service of notice of claim petition, respondent No.1-the owner of motor cycle has not appeared and placed ex-parte.

7. Respondents No.2 & 3 being the rider and insurer respectively appeared through their counsels, but respondent No.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top