The court affirmed that a charge sheet and corroborating electronic evidence are sufficient to establish negligence in a motor accident claim, thereby upholding the liability of the insurance company.

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2026.03.02 19:02:18 +0530

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 , AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.355/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT DHARWAD AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,02,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

The appellant/Insurance Company filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 03.10.2025 passed in MVC No. 355 of 2021 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Dharwad (‘Tribunal’ for short).

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

2.1. One Siddappa S/o Yallappa Naragund died in a road traffic accident occurred on 18.02.2021. The accident occurred due to a rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-25/AA-9713. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the auto-rickshaw for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased Siddappa, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short) claiming the compensation on account of the death of the deceased Siddappa. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

Respondent No.1-the owner of the auto-rickshaw, during his lifetime, did not file a statement of objections. He died during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal. Thereafter, his LRs were brought on record.

The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contented that, the accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of the deceased Siddappa and the deceased had no valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. It is contented that, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount as claimed by the petitioners. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW1, examined 1 witness as PW2 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9; Ex.P10 was marked with the consent of respondent No.2 i.e., the Insurance Company. In rebuttal, the Deputy Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as RW1, and marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3.

The Tribunal, after recording the evidence and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in-part vide judgment and award dated 03.10.2025 and awarded a compensation of ₹7,02,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization, and held that the LRs of the deceased owner of the auto-rickshaw, and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount.

The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, filed this appeal.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, the accident occurred due to a rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle and not due to the negligence of the driver of the auto-rickshaw. He submits that, the said vehicle has been falsely implicated. The said aspect has not been properly considered by the Tribunal, and committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

It is undisputed that the deceased Siddappa