Mr. Riyaz Alias Mohammed Riyaz Vs Mr. Abdul Basheer

MR. RIYAZ ALIAS MOHAMMED RIYAZ S/O. AHAMMED BAVA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT BASTIPADPU HOUSE MANIHALLA PALLIGUDDE NAVOOR VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574 219.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

MR. ABDUL BASHEER S/O. MOHAMMAD AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT D.NO.3-215(1) KUKKAJE NOLA HOUSE MANCHI VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTIRCT-574 219.

¶15

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE: EMKAYS SHALIMAR COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, KANKANADY MANGALURU, D.K. DISTIRCT-575 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶16

MR. MOHAMMED ASHRAF S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:37697-DB MFA No. 1606 of 2021

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

RESIDING AT ADYARKATTE KODIALBAILU ADYAR MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT-575 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI K.V. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-1-MR. ABDUL BASHEER SERVED)

¶23

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.01.2020, PASSED IN MVC NO.987 OF 2018, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Insurance company and learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37697-DB MFA No. 1606 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.01.2020 passed by learned Principal District Judge, MACT, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, for short (the Tribunal), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,49,056/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶33

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶34

Brief facts of the claimant's case before the Tribunal is as under:-

¶35

On 12.12.2017, Mr. Riyaz (hereinafter referred to as 'injured') was going on his Honda Activa Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-19-EP-5575 towards B.C. Road slowly and carefully by observing all the traffic rules and when he reached Basthipadpu, Bantwal, Kasaba village, at about 1.10 p.m., a Tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-19-B-7893 driven by its driver in a high speed in rash and negligent manner came from B.C. road to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the claimant's scooter, due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to A.J. Hospital, wherein he took treatment as an in-

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:37697-DB MFA No. 1606 of 2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

patient and he was discharged from the hospital. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. Hence, he filed claim petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of MV Act, 1988 for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.

¶40

Sri. Ravishankar Shastry. G, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Tribunal dismissed the claim against respondent No.2-Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited and fastened liability on respondent Nos.1 and 3. During the pendency of the appeal, learned counsel for respondent No.3(Policy Holder) has filed I.A.No.1/2021 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC to permit respondent No.3 to produce the additional evidence i.e., certificate issued by the Regional Transport Authority(RTO), Mangalore, certifying about permit pertaining to Heavy Goods Vehicle(Tipper Lorry) bearing registration No.KA-19-B-7893. The application is accompanied by the affidavit of respondent No.3, wherein, it is contended that respondent No.3 was party before the Tribunal and since there was valid insurance coverage of the Tipper Lorry, respondent No.3 has given required details such as driving license, policy details and certificate showing extension of valid permit to the Insurance company, but, he did not appear before the Tribunal and hence, the Tribunal fastened liability on respondent

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:37697-DB MFA No. 1606 of 2021

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally and thus, he prays to remand back the matter to the Tribunal.

¶45

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance company and respondent No.3 concede to remand the matter and in view of the admitted fact that the Tribunal fastened liability on respondent Nos.1 and 3-driver and the policy holder of the offending vehicle, we are of the considered opinion to remand the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the certificate/permit issued by the competent authority in order to fasten liability on the insurance company, if the permit issued by the competent authority is in accordance with law.

¶46

Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The Appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 27.01.2020 passed by learned Principal District Judge, MACT, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, is hereby setaside.

¶49

Matter is remanded back to the Tribunal and respondent No.2-Insurance company is permitted to lead evidence.

¶50

All contentions are left upon.

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:37697-DB MFA No. 1606 of 2021

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 26.10.2025 to lead evidence and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. However, it is made clear that the claimant is not entitled for interest from the date of the judgment passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.987/2018 till this day i.e., 18.09.2025.

¶55

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶56

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶57

MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Mr. Riyaz Alias Mohammed Riyaz v. Mr. Abdul Basheer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Riyaz Alias Mohammed Riyaz v. Mr. Abdul Basheer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B Nandeesh Vs Sri B Byresh

The Legal Manager Vs Ramachandra @ Ramegowda

M/S. Mysore Fruit Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs Official Liquidator of M/S. United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd.

Parvathamma Vs Sri Indresh H R

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Zeenath

State of Karnataka Vs M/S Bellary Spinning