The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is confirmed, and the amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal's attribution of negligence at 50% each to the driver of the Winger and the driver of the parked Canter requires interference. +2 more

Court's answer

The negligence of 50% concluded by the Tribunal for each of the two tortfeasors (drivers of the Winger and the Canter) cannot be interfered with; no interference is required regarding the 50% negligence attributed to the insured of the appellant.

Ratio / Principle

It was difficult to attribute higher negligence to the driver of the lorry and lesser negligence to the driver of the Winger; the collision following a tyre burst appeared to be a freak accident of unfathomable cause, and the spot sketch (Ex.P4, 68-foot diagonal tyre mark) played a vital role in ascertaining the manner of the accident, more than the testimony of RWs.2 and 4.

Key takeaways

RW.4's testimony that he had switched on the indicators and tail lamps of the parked Canter appears to be an afterthought; the FIR lodged immediately after the accident by an independent bystander, having the advantage of spontaneity, categorically stated there were no indicators or tail lamps visible to vehicles coming from behind.ratio¶102
The Apex Court precedents relied upon by the appellant were not available to reverse the 50:50 apportionment: Jumani Begum could not be made applicable (there the vehicle that dashed the parked lorry was a motorcycle and the Tribunal-view was held to be conjecture); Sushma (car driver held free of contributory negligence after ramming an abandoned lorry) and Kumari Jyothi (motorcyclist, no tyre burst) were distinguishable on the facts of the present case.ratio¶120

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Insurance appeal under S.173(1) MV Act dismissed; Tribunal's award confirmed. A Winger passenger vehicle, after a rear-right tyre burst, rammed into a Canter lorry parked without indicators or tail lamps on the NH-75 bypass near Herur village (Kunigal Taluk), killing paid passenger S.N.Santhosh (aged 28, Junior Engineer, Rs.30,000 p.m.) and four others. The Court upheld the Tribunal's 50:50 apportionment of negligence between the two drivers: the FIR lodged by an independent bystander — valued for its spontaneity — showed no indicators/tail lamps, making RW.4's contrary claim an afterthought; the cause was unfathomable ('freak accident') and it was difficult to attribute higher negligence to either driver, the spot sketch (68-foot tyre mark) being decisive. The Apex Court rulings urged by the insurer (Jumani Begum; Sushma; Kumari Jyothi) were held inapplicable/distinguishable. Contentions on professional-tax deduction and on the 8% interest were rejected — the Tribunal had considered professional tax (para 29 of its judgment) and, though considering Pranay Sethi, awarded nothing for loss of love and affection. Compensation of Rs.26,20,848 with 8% interest stands confirmed; the amount in deposit is to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4369 OF 2018 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2^ND FLOOR, S.M. TOWERS, 11^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.

ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, EAST WING, 5^TH FLOOR, NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. NOW REP. BY MANAGER LEGAL.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

1 . BHAGYAMMA, W/O. NANJAPPACHARI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

2 . NANJAPPACHARI, S/O. LATE PUTTASWAMICHARI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

BOTH ARE R/O SIGAVALU VILLAGE, SALIGRAMA HOBLI, K.R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-575 001.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

3 . CHANNAKESHAVAMURTHY. M.T, S/O. THIMMEGOWDA. V, R/O. VAAHIKA CONNECT, NO.3, MARUTHI NAGAR, GARDEN VILLAGE, NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 072.

4 . SYED ALEEM S/O. SYED ALI, 5^TH BLOCK, BELLUR, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-574 125.

5 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.1119/B, KAMBLI BUILDING, M.C. ROAD, ASHOKA NAGAR, MANDYA-571 401.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-5; SRI MUSHTHAQ AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; NOTICE TO R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 15.11.2022; R-1 AND R-2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.8408/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SCJ & XXXII ACMM MEMBER, MACT-3, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.26,20,848 WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.08.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

CAV JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC.No.8408/2016, dated 15.03.2018, by the learned VII Additional SCJ & XXXII ACMM & Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru, the appellant- Insurance Company [respondent No.2 before the Tribunal] has approached this Court in appeal.

The parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

The factual matrix that is relevant is as below: (a) On 13.08.2016, at about 8.30 p.m., the

deceased-S.N.Santhosh was traveling as a paid passenger in Winger passenger vehicle bearing No.KA-41-A-9933 (Winger) along with other passengers from Bengaluru to Hassan. Near Herur village, on NH-75 bypass road, Kunigal Taluk, a lorry bearing No.KA-13-A-7857 (Canter) was parked in the middle of the road without any indicators. The driver of the Winger drove it in negligent manner, lost control and dashed to the rear side of the

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

parked Canter, resulting in death of the said S.N.Santhosh

and four others and injuries to several other inmates.

(b) At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years, had acquired MBA degree and was employed at Veer-O-Metals Private Limited, as a Junior Engineer earning `30,000/- per month.

(c) The petitioners are the parents of the deceased S.N.Santhosh and they having lost their son, who was bread earner of the family, claimed compensation from the owners and insurers of the Winger and Canter vehicles.

(d) The concerned Police, after investigation found negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles and filed the charge sheet against them.

(e) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal are the owner and insurer of the Winger and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the owner and insurer of the Canter respectively.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

The said petition was opposed by respondent

Nos.1, 2 and 4 by filing objections.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the driver of the Winger was slow and cautious but the Canter was parked without any indications and in dangerous manner at the middle of the road and therefore, negligence cannot be attributed to the driver of the Winger vehicle. They also termed the compensation claimed as highly exorbitant and imaginary. Inter-alia , respondent No.1 stated that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and the driver had valid driving licence and as such, the liability, if any, has to be fastened on respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company (appellant herein) contended that though the policy of insurance was in force, the driver of the Winger vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the vehicle had no valid permit. The driver had allowed the passengers more than the seating capacity permitted and

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.

Respondent No.4 - the insurer of the Canter also took up similar contentions to deny its liability. It stated that the driver of the Canter had parked the vehicle by the side of the road and he had not breached the terms and conditions of the policy and as such, its liability be absolved. Inter-alia , it denied any negligence on the part of the Canter driver.

On the basis of the above contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. Petitioner No.1 was

examined as PW.1 and one witness was examined as PW.2. Exs.P1 to P23 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, four witnesses were examined as RWs.1 to 4 and Exs.R1 to R11 were marked.

After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal held that respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of `26,20,848/-, along with

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit and attributed negligence of 50% on each of the tortfeasors and fastened the liability on both the Insurance Companies, accordingly.

Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2Insurance Company is before this Court in appeal.

The arguments by Sri. Ashok N. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Mushthaq Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5 were heard. Notice to respondent No.3 was dispensed with and respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear despite service of notice.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the Winger was negligent to the extent of 50%. He contends that FIR discloses that the driver of the Canter had parked the same on the left side but its indicators were covered with a tarpaulin and no other blinkers were

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

kept to caution the vehicles coming from behind. He

contends that the Canter being a larger vehicle, its driver should have been more cautious while parking the same. He submits that the driver of the Winger could not have

spotted the parked vehicle when there were vehicles coming from opposite side with headlights on. He places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the cases of JUMANI BEGUM VS. RAM NARARYAN AND OTHERS¹ , SUSHMA VS. NITHIN GANAPATHI RANGOLE AND OTHERS² and KUMARI JYOTHI AND OTHERS VS. MOHD. USMAN ALI AND OTHERS³ to contend that the Tribunal had erred in fastening 50% liability on the appellant. He also contends that the Tribunal failed to consider the professional tax to be deducted from the income of the deceased while calculating the compensation amount.

1 SLP(C).No.29254/2019 DD 11.12.2019

2 SLP(C).No.21172/2021 DD 19.09.2024

3 ILR 2002 KAR 893

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.4 and 5 submit that the FIR and the testimony of RWs.3 and 4 are of pivotal importance in the case. The evidence on record reveal that the Winger had abruptly come on the left side of the road without there being any reason. It is submitted that it is a four lane highway and the accident had occurred on the extreme left side of the two lanes leading towards Hassan. The other two lanes on the right side beyond the median was used by the vehicles coming from Hassan side and as such, blinding due to the headlights cannot be a cause. Hence, he contends that no interference is needed in the impugned judgment.

A careful perusal of the evidence on record

reveal the following aspects:

(a) The FIR at Ex.P1 shows that a bystander saw

the accident from a distance of 200 meters and he lodged

the complaint to the Police. It was stated in the FIR that the Canter vehicle was parked without any indicator lights,

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

the rear door was open and tarpaulin was covered to the body of the lorry. His observation is categorical in saying that there were no indicators or tail lamps that could be seen by the vehicles coming from behind.

(b) The FIR is also clear in saying that when informant was in the hotel, he heard the sound of bursting of the tyre and thereafter, he heard the sound of collision of two vehicles. He rushed to the spot and found that a maxi cab had dashed to the rear of the canter and with the help of the villagers, he extricated the inmates. There were about 14-15 inmates and four of them had died at the spot and about 09-10 inmates were injured. All the injured were shifted to Kunigal Hospital in an ambulance. He was categorically saying that the negligence was by the driver of both the vehicles.

(c) The spot sketch produced at Ex.P4 show that a tyre mark of the length of 68 feet is found diagonally from the right lane to the left lane of the road and the total width of the road is 24 feet. The accident had taken place

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

at bridge. The four lane highway is divided by a median,

which has bushes on the median.

(d) The Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report (MVI Report) at Ex.P5 shows that there was extensive damage to the TATA Winger and one of the damage is that the rear right side tyre is deflated and the wheel disk was damaged.

(e) The charge sheet at Ex.P8 indicates that the drivers of both the vehicles to be negligent.

(f) The cross-examination of RW.2-Santhosh shows that he was the driver of the TATA Winger and according to him, there was a bursting of his vehicle's rear right tyre and as a result, he lost control and dashed to the rear of the canter. In the cross-examination, though it is suggested that he was in high speed, which he has denied, there is no suggestion that there was no such tyre burst. RW.3 is not an eyewitness to the accident but he was owner of the TATA Winger who has supported the testimony of RW.2.

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

(g) RW.4-Naushad happens to be the driver of the

Canter Lorry and he states that he had parked his lorry on the left side, on the mud road since the right side wheel was punctured. He states that he had put on the parking lights. In the cross-examination, he denied that there were no indicators for having parked on the road.

The above evidence on record would show that the reason for the TATA Winger to swerve to the left side abruptly, with a tyre mark of 68 feet as noted in the sketch was due to the bursting of the tyre. Had there no bursting of the tyre, the vehicle would have easily bypassed the parked lorry. Similarly, if the Canter was parked on the mud road, after the bridge, the collision between the vehicles could have been averted. The testimony of the RW.4 that he had put on the indicators and the tail lamps appears to be an afterthought since the FIR lodged by an independent person, who had seen the Canter prior to the accident and after the accident categorically states that there were no indicators or the

13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

tail lamps. The FIR having come on record immediately

after the accident, has the advantage of spontaneity.

In view of the above material on record, it is evident that if the driver of the TATA Winger had taken care, the bursting of the tyre would have been averted. It is not known what was the reason for such mechanical failure of bursting of the tyre. Be that as it may, if the canter lorry had not broken down and had parked on the left side of the bridge, the accident would not have happened. It appears to be a freak accident, the cause of which is unfathomable. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that it is difficult to attribute higher negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and lesser negligence of the part of the driver of the Winger. The sketch of the spot of the accident relied by the petitioners as well as the RW.4 plays a vital role in ascertaining the manner in which the accident occurred than the testimony of the RWs.2 and 4.

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

The Tribunal though discussed the evidence on

record elaborately in paragraph Nos.21 to 23, has not recorded the reasons why it is attributing 50% negligence to each of the torsfeasors. Though it has not spelt out the same, it has reflected the same in the operative portion of the judgment by apportioning the liability equally on both the tortfeasors.

In view of the above, this Court finds that the negligence on the part of the two tortfeasors as concluded by the Tribunal at 50% each cannot be interfered with. Though the Winger is a smaller vehicle, the degree of precaution that was to be taken by its driver was on the higher side since he could have controlled the vehicle had he driven at slower speed when there was a tyre burst. Thus, by balancing the negligence on the part of the larger vehicle as against the smaller vehicle and the degree of precaution which should have been taken by the driver of

the smaller vehicle, this Court finds that the negligence of 50% fastened upon the winger insured with the appellant

15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

is proper and correct. No interference is required in this regard.

The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JUMANI BEGUM (referred supra) cannot be made applicable to the case on hand since the vehicle which dashed against the parked lorry was a motorcycle and the view of the Tribunal that the rider could have seen the parked truck is held to be a conjecture.

The judgment in the case of SUSHMA (referred supra), the Apex Court had considered the contributory negligence on the part of the car driver, who had rammed into the rear of an abandoned lorry at the middle of the road. It was held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the car driver. Obviously, the said decision is distinguishable on the facts of the present case.

The judgment in the case of KUMARI JYOTHI (referred supra), a motorcyclist had collided with a parked lorry from behind, for which, no indicators for such parking

16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

were placed. Obviously there was no tyre burst and as such distinguishable.

In view of the above, no interference is needed regarding the 50% negligence attributed to the insured of the appellant.

Sofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the professional tax from the income of the deceased is not deducted, the Tribunal has considered the same in paragraph No.29 of the judgment and therefore, the same is to be rejected.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also assailed the rate of interest of 8% awarded by the Tribunal. This Court do not find any merit in the same by noticing that the Tribunal did not award any amount under the head of 'loss of love and affection', though it considers the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V/S PRANAY SETHI AND

17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39384 MFA No. 4369 of 2018

HC-KAR

OTHERS⁴ . Therefore, the appeal is bereft of merits and

the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The appeal filed by the Insurance

Company is dismissed and the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be

transmitted to the Tribunal.

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

4 AIR 2017 SC 5157

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and award dated 15.03.2018 in MVC No.8408/2016 awarding compensation of Rs.26,20,848 with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, holding respondent Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally liable and attributing 50% negligence to each of the two tortfeasors.¶32
VII Additional SCJ & XXXII ACMM Member, MACT-3, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru · 15.03.2018
Prior proceeding
On 13.08.2016 at about 8.30 p.m., near Herur village on the NH-75 bypass road, Kunigal Taluk, the deceased S.N.Santhosh was travelling as a paid passenger in Winger KA-41-A-9933 from Bengaluru to Hassan when the Winger driver lost control (he later stated a rear-right tyre burst caused the loss of control) and dashed into the rear of Canter lorry KA-13-A-7857 parked in the middle of the road without indicators.¶35
Prior proceeding
The accident resulted in the death of S.N.Santhosh and four others and injuries to several other inmates (per the FIR, about 14-15 inmates were in the vehicle, four died at the spot and about 09-10 were injured).¶39
Prior proceeding
The deceased was aged about 28 years, held an MBA degree and worked as a Junior Engineer at Veer-O-Metals Private Limited earning Rs.30,000 per month; his parents (petitioners before the Tribunal) claimed compensation as dependants of the family's bread earner.¶42
Prior proceeding
Police investigation found negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles and a charge sheet was filed; the charge sheet at Ex.P8 indicates that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent.¶95
Prior proceeding
Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the owner and insurer of the Winger and respondent Nos.3 and 4 were the owner and insurer of the Canter; the appellant-insurer was respondent No.2 before the Tribunal.¶44
Prior proceeding
Oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal: petitioner No.1 examined as PW.1 and one further witness as PW.2, with Exs.P1 to P23 marked; four respondents' witnesses RWs.1 to 4 with Exs.R1 to R11 marked.¶58
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal held respondent Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.26,20,848 with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit, attributing 50% negligence to each tortfeasor and fastening liability on both insurance companies.¶63
Prior proceeding
In the appeal, notice to respondent No.3 was dispensed with v/o 15.11.2022; respondent Nos.1 and 2 were served but remained unrepresented.¶24
Prior proceeding
The appeal was heard and reserved on 30.08.2025 and came on for pronouncement of judgment (CAV judgment) on 03.10.2025.¶26