Branch Manager Reliance General Insurance Company… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

Branch Manager Reliance General Insurance Company… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both appeals (MFA No.6271/2023 by the Insurance Company and MFA No.7528/2023 by the claimants) allowed; the judgment and award dated 30.03.2023 in MVC.No.860/2020 set aside; matter remanded to the tribunal to proceed from the stage of recording of evidence, granting the Insurance Company opportunity to adduce evidence, the claimants liberty to cross-examine such evidence, and reasonable time to both sides for arguments; Insurance Company to pay Rs.5,000/- cost to the claimants on the next date of hearing as condition precedent; tribunal empowered to impose exemplary costs for unnecessary adjournments and to endeavour disposal within four months from receipt of copy of the order; amount in deposit and original records to be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith; both parties to appear before the jurisdictional tribunal on 25.03.2025 without awaiting further notice; pending interlocutory applications do not survive.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and award of the tribunal should be set aside on the ground that no opportunity was provided to the Insurance Company to lead evidence, warranting remand. +2 more

Court's answer

Sufficient time having been granted to the respondents (including the Insurance Company) before the tribunal to lead evidence and argue the matter, the same was not utilised.

Ratio / Principle

Since the Insurance Company is in appeal, its position has to be considered favourably by providing it the opportunity to go before the tribunal and adduce evidence in a time bound manner.

Key takeaways

The occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicles, and the death due to the road traffic accident were proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to P10 (stated while framing the questions; the Court thereafter declined to decide the merits).obiter¶71
The Court refrains from delving further into the merits of the matter, as doing so may hamper the case of the claimants and the Insurance Company at this stage; merits (contributory negligence and quantum) are left open for the tribunal.ratio¶81

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173(1) — Cross appeals (by insurer and by claimants) against judgment and award dated 30.03.2023 of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT-V, Chitradurga in MVC.No.860/2020 awarding Rs.17,02,000/- with 6% interest for death of motor cyclist Raghavendra in collision with auto rickshaw KA-16/B-3537 on 30.12.2019 — Insurer alleged denial of opportunity to lead evidence on contributory negligence of the deceased rider; claimants sought enhancement on ground of low income and other heads — Held, perusal of order sheet showed sufficient time granted on multiple dates yet respondents led no evidence despite their reopening application being allowed with Rs.500/- cost; however, since the Insurance Company was in appeal, it was to be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence in a time bound manner — Court expressly refrained from entering into merits of negligence, contributory negligence and quantum, leaving them open — Appeals allowed; impugned judgment and award set aside; matter remanded to the tribunal to proceed from the stage of recording of evidence, claimants free to cross-examine; Rs.5,000/- cost imposed on the Insurance Company payable to claimants as condition precedent; tribunal to endeavour disposal within four months; parties directed to appear before tribunal on 25.03.2025; deposit and records to be transmitted forthwith.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9364 MFA No. 6271 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7528 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6271 OF 2023 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7528 OF 2023 (MV-D)

IN MFA No.6271/2023:

BETWEEN:

BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED B.D.ROAD, NEAR PETROL BUNK CHITRADURGA-577 501

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

…APPELLANT

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: High Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

NARASIMHA NAIK S/O.GENANAIK AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

PARVATHI BAI W/O.NARASIMHANAIK AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

KAVERI N. D/O.NARASIMHANAIK AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9364 MFA No. 6271 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7528 of 2023

KAVYA N. D/O.NARASIMHANAIAK AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

R-1 TO R-4 ARE R/AT LAMBANIHATTI CHANNAGANAHALLY VALSE VILLAGE THALUK HOBALI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522

T.VEERESHA S/O.THIPPESWAMY R/AT HOTTAPPANAHALLI CHALLAKERE TLAUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4; R-5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2023 PASSED IN MVC.NO.860/2020 BY II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-V AT CHITRADURGA.

IN MFA NO.7528/2023:

BETWEEN:

NARASIMHA NAIK S/O.GENANAIK AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

PARVATHI BAI W/O.NARASIMHANAIK AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

3 KAVERI N. D/O.NARASIMHANAIK AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9364 MFA No. 6271 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7528 of 2023

KAVYA N. D/O.NARASIMHANAIK AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT LAMBANIHATTI CHANNAGANAHALLY VALSE VILLAGE THALK HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522

… APPELLANTS

(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

T.VEERESHA S/O.THIPPESWAMY MAJOR OWNER OF AUTO BEARING NO.KA-16/B-3537 R/AT HOTTAPPANAHALLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522

THE BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD. B.D.ROAD, NEAR PETROL BUNK CHITRADURGA-577 501

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;

NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED V/O.DATED 04.03.2025)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2023 PASSED IN MVC.NO.860/2020 BY II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-V AT CHITRADURGA.

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

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9364 MFA No. 6271 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7528 of 2023

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

These appeals are preferred challenging the judgment and award dated 30.03.2023 passed in MVC.No.860/2020 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-V at Chitradurga (for short ‘the tribunal’).

The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company

is seeking to set-aside the judgment and award passed by the tribunal on the ground that no opportunity was provided to the Insurance Company to lead evidence and the tribunal has passed an erroneous order taking into consideration the materials placed on record including the aspect of contributory negligence as against the deceased person, whereas the appeal preferred by the claimants is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal and consequently, enhance the compensation as the tribunal has not taken the correct and proper income for awarding compensation, so also, under other heads.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9364 MFA No. 6271 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7528 of 2023

Parties to the appeals shall be referred to as per

their status before the tribunal.

Brief facts of the case is as under:

On 30.12.2019, one Raghavendra was proceeding on

a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-16/EN-3919 from Sanikere to Challakere. When he came near Hottappanahally gate, an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-16/B-3537 being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle of the said Raghavendra. Due to the said impact, the said Raghavendra fell down and sustained grievous injuries and while he was being shifted to the Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the claimants, who are the dependants and legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation against the owner of the auto rickshaw, the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9364 MFA No. 6271 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7528 of 2023

4.1 On appearance, respondent No.1 did not file written statement. However, respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed written statement denying the claim of the claimants, occurrence of accident, negligence on the part of the driver of the auto rickshaw, on the contrary, it is pleaded that the deceased himself contributed to the occurrence of accident and therefore, there is no liability on the part of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

4.2 On the basis of the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.17,02,000/- with interest at 6% per annum and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, since the policy was in force, respondent-Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation within 30 days as per the apportionment made therein.

It is the vehement contention of Sri Ashok N.Patil, learned counsel for Insurance Company that the tribunal

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9364 MFA No. 6271 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7528 of 2023

has committed a gross error in not taking into consideration the materials on record, both oral and documentary. Therefore, the judgment and award rendered by the tribunal is erroneous. He further contends that the tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the complaint has been lodged by one of the inmates of the auto rickshaw, who has implicated both driver of the auto rickshaw and rider of the motor cycle. It is contended that since there is equal contributory negligence of the rider of the motor cycle, the deceased in occurrence of the accident, the tribunal ought to have attributed the contributory negligence as against the rider of the motor cycle i.e. the deceased to certain extent, which has not been done in the present case.

5.1 It is further contended by learned counsel for Insurance Company that sufficient opportunity has not been given to the Insurance Company by the tribunal to lead evidence placing materials on record with regard to establishing the contributory negligence of the deceased,

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9364 MFA No. 6271 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7528 of 2023

who was the rider of the motor cycle. It is also contended that the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal is exorbitant and the same requires to be countered by the Insurance Company by way of evidence. On these grounds, he contends that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal be set-aside and the matter be remanded back to the tribunal and sufficient and reasonable opportunity be provided to the Insurance Company to defend its case.

Per contra, Sri R.Shashidhara, learned counsel for claimants vehemently contends that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is not sustainable, as the materials placed on record have not been appreciated by the tribunal and the income taken by the tribunal is on the lower side. He also contends that the absolute negligence is on the part of the driver of the auto rickshaw, who was suddenly come on the Highway without due caution. Therefore, the entire negligence has been rightly fastened on the driver of the auto rickshaw, consequently, the

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9364 MFA No. 6271 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7528 of 2023

Insurance Company. On these grounds, he seeks to allow

his appeal and enhancement of compensation.

I have heard learned counsel for Insurance Company and learned counsel for claimants. The occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicles, death having occurred due to the road traffic accident are proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to P10. The question now to be decided is what is the age, avocation, income, multiplier and the compensation to be awarded so also the issue of contributory negligence, if any, to be fastened on the deceased, who was riding the motor cycle on the unfortunate day as pleaded by the Insurance Company.

Apparently, it is seen from the order sheet of the

tribunal that after completion of the evidence of the claimants' side, the respondents have not led any evidence, though he has filed an application on 06.12.2022 to reopen the case and to lead evidence of the respondents.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9364 MFA No. 6271 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7528 of 2023

On a careful perusal of the order sheet of the tribunal, it is seen that on 26.09.2022, PW.1 was fully cross-examined by the Insurance Company; thereafter, on 20.10.2022, the case was posted for the evidence of the respondents; subsequently, on 27.10.2022, 15.11.2022, 29.11.2022 and thereafter, on 06.12.2022; after granting sufficient time, when the matter was posted for arguments on 06.12.2022, the Insurance Company filed an application to recall the witness and reopen the case for adducing evidence of the respondents, which came to be allowed and the matter was posted on 19.12.2022 for the evidence of the respondents finally, on which day also, the respondents sought time; therefore, the matter was posted on 09.01.2023, on which day, Advocate of respondent No.2 prays time and since sufficient time was granted, the same was rejected and the matter was posted for arguments of Advocate for respondents finally on 16.02.2023; subsequently, on 16.02.2023, 27.02.2023, 01.03.2023 and 07.03.2023 and thereafter, on 30.03.2023, the judgment came to be passed.

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9364 MFA No. 6271 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7528 of 2023

Under the circumstance, it is seen that sufficient time having been granted to the respondents to lead evidence and argue the matter, the same has not been utilised despite allowing the application filed by the Insurance Company by imposing cost of Rs.500/-. But the fact remains that according to the Insurance Company, FIR and chargesheet are also laid against the rider of the motor cycle, who was arraigned as accused No.2. Therefore, there is some materials on record, which have to be elaborated in his evidence. However, though sufficient opportunity has been given to the respondents, they have not adduced any evidence. Of course, the same can be compensated by imposing costs against the Insurance Company.

Since the Insurance Company is in appeal, the same would have to be considered favourably by providing opportunity to the Insurance Company to go before the tribunal by adducing evidence in a time bound manner and producing materials to elaborate its case. Therefore, this

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9364 MFA No. 6271 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7528 of 2023

Court refrains from delving further into the merits of the matter as it may hamper the case of the claimants and the Insurance Company at this stage.

Under the circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires to be remanded back to the tribunal to proceed with the same from the stage of evidence of the Insurance Company and for addressing arguments on the main matter in a time bound manner. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeals are allowed;

ii) The judgment and award dated 30.03.2023 passed in MVC.No.860/2020 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-V at Chitradurga, is setaside;

iii) The matter is remanded back to the tribunal to the decide the same by providing an opportunity to the Insurance Company to adduce evidence and

so also the claimants to cross-examine the respondents, if such evidence is adduced on

13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9364 MFA No. 6271 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7528 of 2023

granting such reasonable time and the parties be provided reasonable time to address their

arguments;

iv) The Insurance Company shall pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the claimants on the next date of hearing, which would be condition precedent;

v) It is made clear that the tribunal shall proceed further from the stage of recording of evidence;

vi) In case of any unnecessary adjournments, the tribunal is at liberty to impost exemplary costs on the parties;

vii) The tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose off the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order;

viii) The amount in deposit, if any, deposited before this Court, shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith;

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9364 MFA No. 6271 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 7528 of 2023

ix) Both parties shall appear before the jurisdictional tribunal on 25.03.2025, without awaiting any further notice from the tribunal or from this Court;

x) The original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith;

In view of disposal of the appeals, pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and the same pales into insignificance.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64