The Branch Manager, Vs Bharati W/O Veerabhadrappa… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

The Branch Manager, Vs Bharati W/O Veerabhadrappa… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant insurer; the judgments and awards dated 27.11.2013 in MVC Nos.83 and 87 of 2010 were confirmed, and the Tribunal records together with any amount in deposit were ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned forthwith.

Issue for consideration

Point framed for consideration: liability - whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, so as to fix liability on the Insurance Company.

Court's answer

Placing reliance on the police charge sheet (Ex.P6 in MVC No.87/2010), which was not challenged either by the driver or by the Insurance Company, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company.

Ratio / Principle

No error was found in the impugned judgments and awards passed by the Tribunal; the point regarding liability was answered accordingly, supporting dismissal of the appeals.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous First Appeals Nos. 100305 and 100306 of 2014 (MV-D) under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. against the common judgment and award dated 27.11.2013 of the District and Sessions Judge and MACT-I, Bagalkot in MVC Nos.83/2010 (Rs.3,34,500/-) and 87/2010 (Rs.6,54,500/-), arising out of an accident of 24.07.2009 in which a TATA mini truck (KA-36/1711) dashed a motorcycle (KA-29/J-8139) on the Gaddanakeri-Simikeri road, killing rider Veerabhadrappa and pillion rider Shivanagouda. The insurer argued that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated and that there was no reference to it in the complaint and FIR. The Court found no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and the deaths, and upheld the Tribunal's reliance on the unchallenged police charge sheet (Ex.P6) attributing the accident to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver, whereby liability stood fastened on the Insurance Company. Finding no error in the impugned judgments and awards, the Court dismissed both appeals, confirmed the awards, and directed that the Tribunal records and any amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12177 MFA No. 100305 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100306 of 2014

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100305 OF 2014 (MV-D)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100306 OF 2014 IN MFA NO. 100305 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEAR D.C.OFFICE, BADAMI ROAD, GADAG SUMMONS MAY BE SERVED THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEAR BASAVESHWAR ENGINEERING COLLEGE, VIDYAGIRI CIRCLE, BAGALKOT REP. BY ITS AUTH SIGNATORY, SHRIRAM GIS LTD E-8 EPCO RIICO, INDUSTRAIL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASHTAN.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV)

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

BHARATI W/O VEERABHADRAPPA SHIRUR AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

BASAVVA W/O MALIYAPPA SHIRUR AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

MALIYAPPA S/O IRAPPA SHIRUR AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL, ALL ARE R/O: MURANAL R.C., TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT.

SHARANAPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA SOBARAD, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BHARAT SUPPLIERS, OCC: COURT, KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12177 MFA No. 100305 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100306 of 2014

HC-KAR

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. D.V PATTAR, ADV FOR SRI. ANAND R KOLLI, ADV FOR R1 TO R3 NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:27.11.2013, PASSED IN MVC. NO.83/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT-I BAGALKOT, AWARDING THE COMPENSTION OF RS.3,34,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

IN MFA NO. 100306 OF 2014 BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEAR D.C.OFFICE, BADAMI ROAD, GADAG SUMMONS MAY BE SERVED THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEAR BASAVESHWAR ENGINEERING COLLEGE, VIDYAGIRI CIRCLE, BAGALKOT NOW REP. BY ITS AUTHORITY SIGNATORY, SHRIRAM GIC LTD, E-8 RIICO, IFO, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASHTAN-500022.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C KOLLOORI, ADV)

AND:

MALLAMMA D/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

MADHUSHRI D/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

NINGANAGOUDA S/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

GIRISHAGOUDA S/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12177 MFA No. 100305 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100306 of 2014

HC-KAR

PREMA D/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 6 YEARS, OCC: NOT APPLICABLE,

SMT. BAYAKKA W/O NINGANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

SMT. VANASHRI W/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

ALL ARE R/O: KESANUR R.C., TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT.

SHARANAPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA SOBARAD, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BHARAT SUPPLIERS, OCC: COURT, KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

(RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE BEING MINORS, REP BY RESPONDENT NO.6, SMT. BAYAKKA W/O NINGANAGOUDA PATIL AS MINOR GUARDIAN)

…RESPONDENTS

(R1 TO R5 ARE MINORS R/BY R6, NOTICE TO R6 & R7 ARE SERVED NOTICE TO R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:27.11.2013, PASSED IN MVC. NO.87/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT I BAGALKOT, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.6,54,500/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12177 MFA No. 100305 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100306 of 2014

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

These Appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ M.V.Act ,’ for short) by the Insurance Company. MFA No.100305/2014 is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 27.11.2013 passed in MVC No.83/2010 by the learned District and Sessions Judge and MACT-I, Bagalkot, and MFA No.100306/2014 is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 27.11.2013 passed in MVC No.87/2010 by the learned District and Sessions Judge and MACT-I, Bagalkot.

These appeals arise out of the same accident. Hence, they are taken together for a common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts.

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals, are as follows:

On 24.07.2009, at about 11.15 p.m. the deceased Veerabhadrappa was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-29/J-8139 along with a pillion rider i.e., the deceased Shivanagouda on Gaddanakeri and Simikeri road. At

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12177 MFA No. 100305 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100306 of 2014

HC-KAR

that time, a TATA mini truck bearing Reg.No.KA-36/1711 came from Gaddanakeri cross, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the motorcycle thereby, causing an accident. As a result, the rider and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased rider and pillion rider have filed a claim petitions under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in MVC Nos.83 and 87 of 2010 respectively. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

The owner of the offending vehicle/ Mini Truck filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions. It is admitted that he is the owner of the offending vehicle, and he contended that as of the date of the accident, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, and the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective license as of the date of the accident. It is contended that the deceased himself was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, prays to

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12177 MFA No. 100305 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100306 of 2014

HC-KAR

dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle.

The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

The Tribunal tried both the claim petitions separately and framed the relevant issues.

The petitioners to substantiate their case, petitioner No.3 in MVC No.83/2010, was examined as P.W.1, and marked 2 documents as Exs.P1 and P2. Conversely, the official of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4. The petitioner No.6 in MVC No.87/2010 was examined as P.W.1, and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. Conversely, the official of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and marked 1 document as Ex.R1.

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part with

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12177 MFA No. 100305 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100306 of 2014

HC-KAR

costs vide judgment dated 27.11.2013, and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,34,500/- in MVC No.83/2010 and Rs.6,54,500/- in MVC No.87/2010 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. It is held that respondents i.e., the owner and the insurance company of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners in both the claim petitions.

The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.83 and 87 of 2010, filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated. He submits that there is no reference to the offending vehicle in the complaint and the FIR. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeals.

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12177 MFA No. 100305 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100306 of 2014

HC-KAR

Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. He submits that neither the driver of the offending vehicle nor the Insurance Company has challenged a charge sheet. The Tribunal, placing reliance on the charge sheet has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and rightly awarded the compensation in both the petitions. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

Perused the records and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties.

15.The point that would arise for my consideration is regarding the liability.

Regarding Liability:

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased Veerabhadrappa and the deceased Shivanagouda in a road traffic accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners in

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12177 MFA No. 100305 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100306 of 2014

HC-KAR

MVC No.87/2010 have produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P6, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Admittedly, neither the driver of the offending vehicle nor the Insurance Company have challenged the charge sheet. The police, after investigation have filed the charge sheet. The Tribunal, placing reliance on the charge sheet, has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments and awards passed by the Tribunal. In view of the same, the point regarding liability is answered accordingly.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The Appeals are dismissed.

ii) The judgments and awards dated 27.11.2013 passed in MVC Nos.83 and 87 of 2010 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, and MACT-I, Bagalkot, are hereby confirmed.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12177 MFA No. 100305 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 100306 of 2014

10 -

HC-KAR

iii) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10