IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102650 OF 2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI SIDDHAPPA S/O LAXMAN GUDGENATTI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GODIHAL, TQ: AND DIST: BELGAUM.

2. SMT.MAHADEVI W/O SIDDHAPPA GUDGENATTI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GODIHAL, TQ: AND DIST: BELGAUM.

3. KUMAR PREM S/O LAGMA @ SATYAPPA GUDGENATTI, AGE: 04 YEARS, OCC: NIL, -REST DO-

(APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT NO.1 & 2 ARE THE GRANDFATHER AND MOTHER)

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI BM PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI MOHAN S/O GUNDU TAMBULKAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, CHANDRASHEKAR L K A A X T M TI A M N ANI R/O: BAMBARAGE, TQ: AND DIST: BELGUAM.

(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE I.E. BAJAJ X-CD 135 DCL LKD+ A oa Hi a0 g cr X t1 Ai ena t M 0 N : ta a 0 i 2t l A o D a0 y n NR k 2 : s a A 6 K H i , gS . A D0 i nH g T 4h e h ET . d a0 K C I r 2 M b w A o y 0 u AR a6 rd N t : 2 B I o 3ef :n4c0h B EARING REG.NO.KA-22/EC-6785)

2. IFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MATONG BUILDING-MADHAV NAGAR ROAD, DURGAMATA MANDIR, SANGLI, STATE:MAHARASHTRA-416416.

(INSURER OF MOTOR CYCLE I.E. BAJAJ X-CD 135 BEARING REG.NO.KA-22/EC-6785 VALID FROM 18/08/2010 TO 17/08/2011)

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GN RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VC);

NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.07.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1056/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-V, BELGAUM, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT & ETC.

THIS MFA 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 09.07.2014 passed by IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Member, MACT-V, Belgaum (‘Tribunal’, for short) in MVC no.1056/2013, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri BM Patil, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by claimants challenging dismissal of claim petition. It was submitted that at 7:30 a.m. on 06.06.2011, claimants received intimation that Lagama alias Satyappa Gudgenatti had met with an accident and died and his body was lying beneath bridge on service road near University on PB road. On visiting spot, it was noticed that Lagama had died with injuries on his head, nose, face, legs and motorbike was lying at a distance from body. Initially police suspected it to be a hit and run case. In view of above, alleging loss of dependency due to sudden demise, claimants i.e. parents and minor daughter son of deceased Lagama filed claim petition under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, For short, ‘MV Act’, against owner and insurer of motorcycle.

3. Despite service of notice owner did not appear and he was placed ex-parte. Only insurer opposed claim petition denying averments in toto. But, admitting issuance of insurance policy with regard to motorcycle in question and its validity as on date of accident contending that policy was subject to terms and conditions of policy and claimant establishing that deceased had valid driving licence at time of accident.

4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 deposed as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. On other hand, insurer examined its official as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1 and R2.

5. On consideration, especially police investigation records arraigning deceased himself for causing accident due to rash and negligent riding, it held claim petition under Section

163A of MV Act, for own negligence was not tenable. Further taking note of facts and circumstances it opined that there was false implication of insured vehicle for purpose of claim and dismissed claim petition. Aggrieved, claimants were in appeal.

6. It was submitted that claim petition having been filed under Section 163A of MV Act, there was no need for claimants to plead and establ