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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 11700

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RAVI V.HOSMANI
DEVAKKA W/O MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH TALWAR – Appellant
Versus
TIPPESWAMY S/O NIJALINGAPPA – Respondent
MFA 103300/2015



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103300 OF 2015 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1. DEVAKKA W/O MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH TALWAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O MAKNUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.

2. RAVI S/O MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH TALWAR, AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, M/G MOTHER SMT. DEVAKKA W/O MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH TALWAR, R/O MAKNUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI VISHWANATH L. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. TIPPESWAMY S/O NIJALINGAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O GANANAYAKANAHALLI, TQ. HIRIYUR, DIST. CHITRADURGA.

(OWNER OF THE CAR REG.NO.KA-16/M-4840)

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KATTIMANI Location: High UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., Court of Karnat aka, Dharwad Bench, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESWAPUR HUBBALLI.

Dharwad (INSURER OF THE CAR REG.NO.KA-16/M-4840)

POLICY NO.240800/31/10/01/00000412 VALID FROM 20.01.2011 TO 19.01.2012.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GIRISH S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (THROUGH VC);

SRI SHASHANK S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR IN MVC NO.418/2011 DATED 17.03.2015 AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC.

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 17.03.2015 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in MVC no.418/2011, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri Vishwanath L. Hegde learned counsel appearing for Sri MH Patil, Advocate for appellants submitted that appeal was by claimants challenging dismissal of claim petition. It was submitted that on 09.02.2011, one Manjappa and Mallikarjun were proceeding on motorcycle near Chalageri village, when driver of Car no.KA-16/M-4840 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle causing accident. In said accident, Manjappa and Mallikarjun sustained grievous injuries and admitted to Government Hospital, Ranebennur. Despite treatment, Manjappa did not recover fully. Not able to sustain pain, he committed suicide on 21.03.2021, few days after date of discharge. It was submitted, death was solely on account of injuries sustained in accident and therefore his wife and minor child filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against owner and insurer of car.

3. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on all counts, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 was examined as PW-2 and doctor examined as PW-4 and Exs.P1 to P38 got marked. In rebuttal, an official of insurer was examined as RW-1 and copy of insurance policy got marked as Ex.R1.

4. On consideration, Tribunal held, accident had occurred by rash and negligent driving of car by its driver and also assessed compensation. On consideration, Tribunal dismissed claim petition noting that injured had committed suicide and therefore was not entitled for compensation. Aggrieved, appeal was filed.

5. It was submitted that as on date of incident, Manjappa was 35 years of age and working as Milk Vendor and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He sustained a displaced fracture of tibia. Accident occurred on 09.02.2011 and he was inpatient at Primary Health Center, Ranebennur till 03.03.2011 and as he was in severe pain and unable to bear same he had committed suicide on 21.03.2011. Since death was directly attributable to pain and sufferings on account of accidental injuries, dismissal of claim petition by Tribunal was not justified and therefore seeks for allowing appeal.

6. On other hand, Sri Girish S. Hulmani, learned counsel for respondent no.1/owner

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top