The Divisional Manager Vs Gopala @ Gopala Krishna — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

The Divisional Manager Vs Gopala @ Gopala Krishna — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both appeals (MFA Nos.6299/2012 and 6298/2012) dismissed; the judgment and award dated 05.03.2012 in MVC.Nos.153/2010 and 154/2010 confirmed; whatever amount deposited by the insurer to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending lorry and interference in the said finding is required?

Court's answer

The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver does not call for any interference by this Court; the point is answered 'Negative'.

Ratio / Principle

PW-1, the claimant in MVC.No.154/2010, was an eyewitness; according to him the motorcyclist stopped his vehicle at the junction and was trying to cross when the lorry driver hit the motorcycle, and nothing was elicited in cross-examination to show that the accident occurred due to the rider's negligence.

Key takeaways

The evidence of RW-1 (the lorry driver) is unreliable: he was an accused in the criminal case for the accident, and his own cross-examination shows the diesel tank hit the rear side of the motorcycle, whereas his version would imply the front portion should have been hit; this indicates negligence on the part of respondent No.1.ratio¶99
The criminal case registered against the driver and the charge sheet, which respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not challenge, prima facie prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry.ratio¶95

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Two insurer appeals under S.173(1) of the MV Act against a common judgment and award dated 05.03.2012 of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Member, Additional MACT, Sagar: MVC.No.153/2010 (death of motorcyclist Veerabhadrappa Gowda; Rs.4,16,000/- with 6% interest to his wife and children) and MVC.No.154/2010 (pillion rider Gopala @ Gopala Krishna; grievous injuries, 35% permanent disability; Rs.82,800/-). Held, dismissing both appeals: the Tribunal correctly found that the accident of 10.04.2010 near the circle of Amatekoppa of Ulluru Cross was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. The pillion rider (PW-1 in MVC 154/2010) was an eyewitness who stated the motorcyclist had stopped at the junction and was crossing when the lorry struck it, and nothing in cross-examination showed rider negligence. The driver (RW-1), an accused in the criminal case arising from the accident whose charge sheet respondent Nos.1 and 2 never challenged, gave an improbable version: his own cross-examination showed the diesel tank struck the rear (not front) of the motorcycle and that he could stop the lorry only about 150 ft from the spot. The unchallenged charge sheet prima facie proved the driver's negligence. Quantum was not seriously challenged and was not reconsidered. Awards confirmed; deposits of the insurer to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25160 MFA No. 6299 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6298 of 2012

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6299 OF 2012 (MV)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6298 OF 2012 (MV-D)

IN MFA No. 6299/2012

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MALLAPPA COMPLEX, B H ROAD, SHIMOGA. BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO. 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT

(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

GOPALA @ GOPALA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O THIMMAPPA @ THIPPA, R/O. ELAGADDA, AVINAHALLI HOBLI, SAGARA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25160 MFA No. 6299 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6298 of 2012

HC-KAR

ARUN KUMAR AGE 29 YEARS, S/O ANANDAPPA R/O GATHIKERE, HOSANAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

VASANTH AGE 33 YEARS, S/O B MANJU SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R

3.A. SRI VINAY K S/O SOMASHEKRA GOWDA, R/A MANNIAKOPPA VILLAGE, BHEEMANAKERE POST, HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. BIMBADHAR M.GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 02.08.2012, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH, R3(A) IS SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.154/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, SAGAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.82,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. ON Rs.77,800/FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

IN MFA NO. 6298/2012

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MALLAPPA COMPLEX, B.H. ROAD,SHIMOGA,

- 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25160 MFA No. 6299 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6298 of 2012

HC-KAR

BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144,SUBHARAM COMPLES, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. BY ITS MANAGER

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. O MAHESH.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

PRABHAVATHI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA, @ DEVAPPA,

NANDARANI AGED 25 YEARS D/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA, @DEVAPPA,

DEEPA K.V. AGED 23 YEARS D/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA, @DEVAPPA,

NAVEEN AGED 21 YEARS S/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA, @DEVAPPA,

ALL ARE R/O KEDALGUDDE, AVINAHALLI HOBLI, SAGARA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

ARUN KUMAR AGE 29 YEARS S/O ANANDAPPA,

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25160 MFA No. 6299 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6298 of 2012

HC-KAR

R/O GARTHIKERE, HOSANAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

VASANTH AGE 33 YEARS S/O B. MANJU R/O KANLE VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DIST. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R

6A. SRI.VINAY K, S/O SOMASHEKARA GOWDA, R/A MANNIAKOPPA VILLAGE, BHEEMANAKERE POST, HOSNAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DIST.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.BIMBADHAR M.GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4, VIDE ORDER DATED 09.08.2012, NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED 28.02.2025, NOTICE TO LR OF R6 IS SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.153/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, SAGAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.4,16,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25160 MFA No. 6299 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6298 of 2012

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Both these appeals arises out of judgment and award dated 05.03.2012 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and the Additional MACT, Sagar in MVC.Nos.153/2010 and 154/2010 respectively.

Both are insurer's appeal. MFA.No.6299/2012 arises out of MVC.No.154/2010 and MFA.No.6298/2012 arises out of MVC.No.153/2010.

The rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle met with an accident. The rider succumbed to the injuries on the spot and pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. Though the evidence was recorded separately, the Tribunal has taken both the matters together for disposal and passed common judgment. Therefore, both these appeals are taken up together for disposal.

The parties are referred as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

The brief facts of the case are that, on 10.04.2010 at around 12.30 noon, the deceased Veerabhadrappa Gowda

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25160 MFA No. 6299 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6298 of 2012

HC-KAR

was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-15/E6419 along with pillion rider one Gopala @ Gopala Krishna, who is the claimant in MVC.No.154/2010. When they came near the circle of Amatekoppa of Ulluru Cross, the lorry belonging to respondent No.2 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the said motor cycle. As a result, rider of the motor cycle sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries on the spot and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries.

It is further case of claimant in MVC.No.153/2010 that claimants are wife and children of deceased Veerabhadrappa Gowda. They contend that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was aged about 50 years and claimants were depending upon earnings of the deceased Veerabhadrappa Gowda. With these reasons, they prayed to award just and reasonable amount of compensation.

It is the case of claimant in MVC.No.154/2010 that

he suffered fractures, he took treatment in wenlock hospital, Bengaluru and he suffered permanent disability of 35%. He

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25160 MFA No. 6299 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6298 of 2012

HC-KAR

had spent substantial amount towards medical expenses and prayed to award compensation.

Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is a owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending lorry. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed common objections before the Tribunal denying the contentions of the claimant that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. On the contrary, they contended that rider of the motor cycle was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and he hit against the diesel tank of the lorry that resulted in the accident. It is further contended that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and in the event if compensation is awarded, respondent No.3 be directed to pay the same.

The common objections of the respondent No.3 in both the claim petitions are that it denied the contents of the claim petition and it denied its liability to pay the compensation and it has contended that accident took place due to negligence of rider of the motor cycle therefore it is not liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons, they prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25160 MFA No. 6299 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6298 of 2012

HC-KAR

From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues in both claim petitions.

The Tribunal recorded the evidence in both the cases separately. The claimant in MVC.No.153/2010 was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P24. The claimant in MVC.No.154/2010 examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and C.W-1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P14. The driver of the lorry i.e. respondent No.1 was examined as RW-1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2.

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of its lorry by its driver. The Tribunal assessed the compensation in both the cases and by common judgment awarded compensation of Rs.4,16,000/- in MVC.No.153/2010 and Rs.82,800/- in MVC.No.154/2010. The respondent - insurer being aggrieved by the said judgment preferred these appeals.

I have heard the arguments.

Learned counsel for the insurer in both the appeals

contended that accident occurred due to negligence of rider of

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:25160 MFA No. 6299 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6298 of 2012

HC-KAR

motor cycle and that the driver of the lorry was not at all responsible for the accident. The driver was examined as RW-1 by respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the evidence, he has stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. In his cross-examination, nothing was brought out to disbelieve his evidence. The Tribunal erroneously discarded the evidence of RW-1 and held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the lorry and fastened the liability on respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay the compensation, which is erroneous.

Learned counsel for claimants in both the matters submitted that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and has rightly concluded that accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry.

The situation of the road, width of the road and the condition of the road from which the motor cycle came onto the main road clearly indicate that, the motorcyclist could not have entered at a high speed or in a negligent manner. On the contrary, the main road was a tar road with a width of 12 feet. Looking at the map and the mahazar, it is evident that the

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:25160 MFA No. 6299 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6298 of 2012

HC-KAR

driver of the lorry was on the wrong side of the road and hit against the motor cycle. The evidence of RW-1 is not reliable because he was an accused in the criminal case registered against him for the accident in question. The Tribunal considering the same, held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the lorry. The said finding does not call for any interference by this Court. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeals.

The question that arise for my determination

is:

i. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending lorry and interference in the said finding is required?

My findings to the above point is 'Negative' for the following reasons:

Claimant in MVC.No.154/2010 is an eye witness. In his evidence he has reiterated the petition averments and has stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driven by its driver. He was thoroughly examined by the respondent, but nothing was elicited to show

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:25160 MFA No. 6299 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6298 of 2012

HC-KAR

that accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of motor cycle. In his cross-examination at paragraph No.4, PW-1 has stated in detail about the manner in which the accident occurred. According to him, motor cyclist stopped his vehicle at the junction and thereafter tried to cross the road, in the meanwhile, the driver of the lorry came and hit the motor cycle. The Tribunal discussed these facts in detail and came to right conclusion.

Undisputedly, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending lorry and he was charge sheeted for causing the accident in question. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not challenged the said charge sheet. It appears that the driver of the lorry has faced trial before JMFC Court. These documents prima facie prove that accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver of the lorry.

The driver of the lorry was examined as RW-1. In his evidence, he stated that accident occurred due to negligence of rider of the motor cycle. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for respondent, he was an accused in a criminal case registered against him, for causing the accident in

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:25160 MFA No. 6299 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6298 of 2012

HC-KAR

question. Moreover, in his cross-examination by the claimant he has stated that he could stop the lorry approximately 150 ft away from the spot of the accident. He also stated that the backside of the motor cycle hit the diesel tank of the lorry, as a result of which diesel tank was damaged. If the accident had occurred as stated by RW-1 then in all probability the front portion of the motor cycle would have hit the diesel tank and not the rear side. Contrary to the said fact, RW-1 in the crossexamination has stated that the diesel tank hit the rear side of the motor cycle. This clearly indicates that the negligence was on the part of respondent No.1- RW-1. The Tribunal considered the evidence led by both the parties and came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver. This finding does not call for any interference by this Court.

The Tribunal considering the facts and

circumstances and evidence furnished has awarded the compensation. The amount of compensation is not seriously challenged by the insurer. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same.

13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25160 MFA No. 6299 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6298 of 2012

HC-KAR

For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

i. The appeal in MFA. Nos.6299/2012 and 6298/2012 are dismissed.

ii. The judgment and award dated 05.03.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Additional and MACT, Sagar, MVC.Nos. 153/2010 and 154/2010 is confirmed. in

iii. Whatever the amount deposited by the insurer shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.

Send back the trial Court records along with the copy of

the judgment.

(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

AG, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17