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) 10953

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
P SREE SUDHA
SUNIL NAIKA.O – Appellant
Versus
KRISHNA NAIKA – Respondent
MFA 2211/2015



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2211 OF 2015 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

SUNIL NAIKA .O, S/O ONKARANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O KENCHAPURA VILLAGE, TUPPADAHALLI POST, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, NOW R/AT MOUNESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, MOUNESHWARA EXTN., NITUVALLI, NEW EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE 1. KRISHNA NAIKA, SHEKHAR S/O RAMA NAIKA, DESAI AGED 40 YEARS, Location: High DRIVER OF TRACTOR-TRAILER, Court of NA KA-42/T-2749 & KA-16/T-4892, Karnataka R/O SIHI NEERUKATTE VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK-577526, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

2. LOKESHAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OWNER OF TRACTOR TRAILER NO KA-42/T-2749 &

KA-16/T-4892, R/O KENCHAPURA VILLAGE, TUPPADAHALLI POST, HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

3. B T JAYADEVAPPA S/O THIPPANNA MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TRAILER BEARING NO KA-16/T-4892, R/O RANGAPURA VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MELAGIRI PLAZA, OPP. DENTAL COLLEGE, MCC ‘B’ BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

5. KALEGOWDA S/O MARI KALEGOWDA MAJOR OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO KA-42/T-2749 R/O KOUSHALA SANDA GRAMA KANAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI., ADVOCATE FOR R4, V/O DTD: 21.02.2018, NOTICED TO R1 AND R3 IS D/W, R2 AND R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED14.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.828/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER MACT-IV, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

30.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 14.08.2014 passed in MVC No.828/2011 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT-IV, Davanagere for enhancing the compensation and fix the liability on the fourth respondent Insurance company.

2. Heard the arguments of Sri Shashidhar R., learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Manjula N.Tejaswi, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 18.07.2010 at about 12.00 noon petitioner/Sunil Naika had gone for coolie work to fill the soil in the tractor-trailer bearing No.KA-42/T-2749 and KA-16/T-4892. While proceeding in the said vehicle from Betadurkere towards Devarahosahalli village, driver of the said tractor trailer drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, due to which petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injury on his right leg, thigh and there was fracture of elbow and injuries on other parts of the body. Immediately he was shifted to Bapuji hospital, Davanagere wherein he was inpatient from 18.07.2010 to 30.08.2010. Respondent No.1 is the driver, Respondent No.3 is the owner of the trailer and respondent No.4 is the insurer of the trailer. Insurance policy is in force at the time of the accident. Therefore, respondents are jointly entitled to pay the compensation. Hence he filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.50,900/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from date of petition till deposit.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant preferred this appeal and learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle though the policy was in force as on the date

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