Ranganatha D L v. D N Krishna Murthy

NC:(2025:KHC:49384( MFA(No.(4017(of(2022( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(27 (DAY(OF(NOVEMBER,(2025(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(UMESH(M(ADIGA( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(4017(OF(2022((MV-D)(

BETWEEN:((

(

1., RANGANATHA,D.L, S/O,LATE,LINGANNA, AGED,ABOUT,36,YEARS., ,

2., SHIVAKUMAR,D.L,

, S/O,LATE,LINGANNA,

, AGED,ABOUT,30,YEARS., ,

, ,

CHANDRASEKHAR,D.L.,3.,

S/O,LATE,LINGANNA,,

AGED,ABOUT,28,YEARS., Digit allytisigned , by0ANNAPURNA ALL,ARE,RESIDING,AT, G Location:0H IGH DODDERI,HOBLI,, COURT0OF MADHUGIRI,TALUK,,KARNATAKA TUMKURU,DISTRICT., ,,,…APPELLANTS, (BY,SRI.,M.V.,MAHESWARAPPA,,ADVOCATE), AND:( (

1., D.N,KRISHNA,MURTHY, S/O,NAGAPPA, NC:(2025:KHC:49384( MFA(No.(4017(of(2022( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( AGED,ABOUT,24,YEARS,, R/AT,DODDERI,VILLAGE,, MADHUGIRI,TALUK., ,

2., THE,MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM,M.S., GENERAL,INSURANCE, COMPANY,LIMITED,, THNO.04,,9 ,FLOOR,LEVEL,-,06, GOLDEN,HEIGHTS,COMPLEX, TH59 ,'C',CROSS,RAJAJINAGAR,, BANGALORE., ,,,,,,,,…RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.VIJAY,PHANEENDRA,T.B.,,ADVOCATE,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI.A.N.KRISHNASWAMY,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2,, ,,,,,,VIDE,ORDER,DATED,20.11.2025,,,, ,,,,,,NOTICE,TO,R1,IS,DISPENSED,WITH), , , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,UNDER,SECTION,173(1),OF,MV,ACT, AGAINST, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DATED, 31.08.2021,, PASSED, IN, MVC, NO.670/2019, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, IV, ADDITIONAL, DISTRICT, JUDGE, AND, M.A.C.T.,, TUMAKURU-MADHUGIRI,, DISMISSING, THE, CLAIM, PETITION, FOR, COMPENSATION., ,,,,,, , THIS,APPEAL,,COMING,ON,FOR,ADMISSION,,THIS,DAY,, JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:,

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 31.08.2021 passed by the IV Addl.District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, sitting at Madhugiri (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.670/2019.

¶2Though appeal is slated for admission, with consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶3For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶4The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition following the judgment of this Court in MFA.No.7074/2016 in the case of the Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd, vs. Naresh Babu N and another, wherein it was observed by this Court that if rider and pillion rider were not wearing helmet as required under the provision of law then in such

case, the claimant should be denied compensation and the same is challenged in the present appeal.

¶5The case of the claimants in brief are that: On

08.05.2019, deceased D.Lakshmamma was travelling in the TVS Appachi motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-64-R-7677 as a pillion rider and one Shashidara was riding the said vehicle. It is stated that both were not wearing helmet at the time of the alleged incident. Due to his negligence, the said vehicle met with an accident as a result D.Lakshmamma sustained injuries and while undergoing treatment she succumbed to the injuries.

¶6The Tribunal has framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence. Thereafter, the Tribunal heard the arguments of both the sides and dismissed the claim petition by impugned judgment.

¶7Learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contend that not wearing helmet may amount to traffic

offence and it was not a reason for causing of the accident in question. Under such circumstances, the claim made by the claimants for the death of D.Lakshmamma cannot be denied. He further relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., and Smt. Shobha and others in MFA.No.2179/2018 C/w MFA.No.2325/2018 dated

31.05.2022, wherein this Court relied on the judgment of Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of M/s United India Insurance Company vs. M.Ravikumar, and held that non-wearing of the protective headgear/helmet is not a reason for rejection of the claim petition unless it is shown that merely violation of the said provision, he is disentitled from claiming the compensation. The facts of the present case are similar in the above referred case. No ground assigned by learned counsel for respondent as to why the said principle is not applicable to the present case. In view of these reasons, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the

claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is not tenable.

¶8In the present case, the Tribunal has not assessed the amount of compensation for which the claimant are entitled. Therefore, it has to be re-assessed by the Tribunal and compensation has to be calculated. Therefore, matter requires to be relegated to the Tribunal for assessment of the compensation including the point whether the accident was caused due to non-wearing of the helmet by the deceased.

¶9Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER

i) The Appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The judgment and award dated

31.08.2021 passed in MVC.No.670/2019 by the IV Addl.District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, sitting at Madhugiri is set aside.

iii) Matter is remanded to the Tribunal for re-assessment of the materials keeping in view the finding of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA.No.2179/2018 C/w MFA.No.2325/2018 dated 31.05.2022 and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

Considering the date of disposal and to avoid further delay, both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.01.2026 without expecting any notice of summons from the Tribunal.

Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32