Royal Sundaram Ins.Co. Now Known as Vs Sri. Raju

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:35358 MFA No. 1037 of 2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1037 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ROYAL SUNDARAM INS. CO. NOW KNOWN AS M/S.ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE BRANCH PREANA MUSURU, REPRESENTED BY CORPORATE OFFICE, NO.1, 2^ND FLOOR, SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNA SALAI CROSS, CHENNAI - 600 002 REPRESENTED BY MANAGER

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. RAVI SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka

¶13

SRI. RAJU S/O NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶14

SMT. MAHADEVI W/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶15

MASTER. GURUSWAMY S/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.2

¶16

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 RE R/AT CHIKKAVADDARKERI VILLAGE,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35358 MFA No. 1037 of 2018

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

RAVANDUR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001

¶20

T K MANJUNATH S/O KARIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶21

SWAMY S/O SANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶22

RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT BETTADATHUNGA VILLAGE, RAVANDUR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001

¶23

RAME GOWDA S/O JAVARE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O NILANGALA VILLAGE, BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 04.08.2022 R3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R2 RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 SERVED)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED09.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.59/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIRO CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT, PERIYAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,10,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:35358 MFA No. 1037 of 2018

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of the Tribunal dated 09.10.2017 passed in MVC No.59/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Periyapatna (for short 'Tribunal').

¶34

Brief facts of the case is that:

¶35

The petitioners No.1 to 3 are the parents and brother of the deceased Darshan. It is submitted by the petitioners that on 29.03.2011 around 4.00 p.m. when the deceased was riding as a pillion rider with respondent No.4, on his motor bike bearing No.KA-01 X-8814 the respondent No.1 driving vehicle bearing No.KA-45 3066 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed the motor bike driven by 4th respondent, as a result Darshan sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is submitted that the deceased was the eldest son of the petitioners No.1 & 2 and on account of his death the petitioners have sustained mental shock and agony and all their

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:35358 MFA No. 1037 of 2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

future expectations from their son have been ruined as they have lost their eldest son. It is submitted that as on the date of the deceased was studying in primary school and that the accident was solely because of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.KA-45 3066 by the 1st respondent which is owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent also being negligent in riding the bike has contributed to the accident and therefore the respondents No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶40

A minor boy aged about six years met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. His parents and brother have filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.16,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶41

Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance

¶42

Company has preferred this appeal and mainly contended that the driver of the vehicle (respondent No.1) did not possess a

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:35358 MFA No. 1037 of 2018

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

valid driving licence. It is further contended that the driver and owner of insured TATA ACE were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 3(1) r/w 181 and 5 r/w 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶47

The Tribunal held that the Insurance Company failed to establish its case, it neither summoned the relevant documents nor examined the Investigating Officer, and accordingly, fixed the liability on the Insurance Company.

¶48

Admittedly, the Insurance Company has also filed the certified copy of the order sheet in MVC No.1355/2011 marked as Ex.R7, the certified copy of the compromise memo marked as Ex.R8 and the certified copy of the award marked as Ex.R9. In the said documents, the owner of the vehicle clearly admitted that the driver (respondent No.1) did not possess a valid driving licence and accordingly, the matter was settled before the Lok-Adalat, and owner of the vehicle paid compensation.

¶49

Therefore, on perusal of the records, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to allow the appeal. Hence, I pass the following:

¶50