##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5781

MFA No. 100437 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100437 OF 2021 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

BASAVARAJ FAKIRAPPA YALIGAR,

AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

R/O. AVARADI, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI.

(OWNER OF THE TRACTOR AND TRAILER

BEARING REG.NO.KA-24/T-4220)

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SURESH SHETTEMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHIVAPPA

S/O. YAMANAPPA PUJAR,

AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER AND AGRICULTURE,

Digitally signed by

R/O. NARASAPUR, TQ. RAMDURGI,

VIJAYALAKSHMI

M KANKUPPI DIST. BELAGAVI.

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA 2. SRI. FAKIRAPPA

S/O. YAMANAPPA PUJAR,

AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

R/O. NARASAPUR, TQ. RAMDURG,

DIST. BELAGAVI.

(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE

BEARING REG.KA-24/W-2995)

3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

II FLOOR, MADIWALE ARCADE,

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5781

MFA No. 100437 of 2021

HC-KAR

CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.

(INSURER OF MOTORCYCLE

BEARING REG.NO.KA-24/W-2995

VIDE POLICE NO.511100/31/2017/TVS/235041

VALID WITH EFFECT FROM 29-03-2017

TO 28/03/2018

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED;

SMT. SHARMILA M.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2021 PASSED

IN MVC NO.957/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

RAMDURG AND MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE

SAID JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF RS.6,36,000/-, BY ALLOWING

THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN

AS UNDER:

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5781

MFA No. 100437 of 2021

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging

the judgment and award dated 02.01.2021 passed in M.V.C.

No.957/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional

MACT, Ramdurg.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal

are as follows:

3. On 18.01.2018 at about 11:30 a.m., respondent

No.1 herein was a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-24/W-2995. At that time, the driver of

the offending vehicle and trailer bearing registration No.KA-

24/T-4220 and KA-24/T-4221 had stopped the vehicle by

the side of the road in a started condition. When the

motorcycle proceeded ahead of the trailer, suddenly the

driver of the tractor, without following traffic rules, moved

the vehicle, took a right turn, and hit the motorcycle.

4. As a result of the accident, respondent No.1

sustained grievous injuries and filed a claim petition under

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5781

MFA No. 100437 of 2021

HC-KAR

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation

for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.

5. The Tribunal issued notice to the owner of the

motorcycle, who remained unrepresented and was placed

ex-parte. The insurance company of the motorcycle filed its

statement of objections denying the averments made in the

claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due

to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor

and trailer, and not due to the rider of the motorcycle.

6. It was further contended that the charge sheet

was filed against the driver of the tractor and trailer and not

against the rider of the motorcycle, and therefore, the

insurer of the motorcycle is not liable to pay compensation.

7. The appellant herein filed a statement of

objections denying the averments in the claim petition and

contended that the accident was not caused due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer,

but due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle.

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5781

MFA No. 100437 of 2021

HC-KAR

Hence, it was contended that the appellant is not liable to

pay the compensation claimed by respondent No.1.

8. Based on the pleadings, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document