Dismissed¶72

The Legal Manager v. Rathnamma

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2025MFA/7753/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer appeal under S.173(1) MV Act dismissed at admission; gratuitous passenger plea rejected where deceased was owner of goods travelling on tractor-trailer carrying eucalyptus timber; Order IX Rule 13 CPC ex parte ground not available in appeal once miscellaneous petition rejected; Tribunal's evidence appreciation upheld; compensation Rs.5,63,000 with 6% interest (MVC 65/2010, T. Narasipura); deposit transmitted to Tribunal; Cholamandalam GIC Ltd.; single judge C M Joshi.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant-insurer; the amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith, leaving the Tribunal's award undisturbed. ¶72

The Legal Manager Vs Rathnamma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant-insurer; the amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith, leaving the Tribunal's award undisturbed.

¶72

Issue for consideration

Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation where the deceased, travelling on the trailer of the insured tractor, was the owner of the goods carried therein rather than a gratuitous passenger not covered under the policy. +1 more

¶48

Court's answer

The Tribunal's appreciation of the available evidence (testimony of PW.2 and the police papers) in holding that the deceased N.Narayanagowda was travelling on the trailer of the tractor with the goods cannot be disputed.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

Grounds available under Order IX Rule 13 CPC must be urged before the concerned Court or Tribunal; such a ground is not available in an appeal before the Appellate Court.

¶56

Key takeaways

Having exhausted its remedy under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the Insurance Company cannot again agitate in this appeal that it was placed ex parte and that an opportunity/remand is required; the remedy against rejection of such miscellaneous petition lies elsewhere, before the appropriate Court.ratio¶55
Since the deceased N.Narayanagowda was the owner of the goods, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation, and the Tribunal rightly fastened the liability upon it.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA No. 7753 of 2019 (MV-D), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (C M Joshi, J.), decided 18.07.2025 — Insurer's appeal under S.173(1) of the MV Act against the judgment and award dated 13.01.2014 in MVC No.65/2010 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, T. Narasipura) awarding Rs.5,63,000/- with 6% p.a. interest for the death of N. Narayanagowda, dismissed at the admission stage. Held: (i) grounds available under Order IX Rule 13 CPC must be urged before the concerned Court or Tribunal and are not available in appeal; the insurer, having exhausted that remedy (its miscellaneous petition to set aside the ex parte order having been rejected), cannot re-agitate its ex parte placement or seek remand in the appeal; (ii) on the FIR and the testimony of PW.1 and PW.2, the deceased was the owner of the eucalyptus timber and was travelling on the trailer of the tractor with the goods, the Tribunal's appreciation of that evidence could not be disputed, and the insurer was accordingly liable — the plea that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger was rejected. Amount in deposit ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:27099 MFA No. 7753 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7753 OF 2019

¶8

(MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE LEGAL MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM GIC LTD, NO 135/5, 2ND FLOOR, 15TH CROSS, J P NAGAR, 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE – 560078

¶11

NOW REP BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, SR MANAGER – CLAIMS, CHOLAMNDALAM M S GIC LTD, NO.1/2, GOLDEN HEIGHTS, 6TH FLOOR, 59TH C CROSS, 4TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGR, BANGALORE – 560010.

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI.PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

AND:

¶16

RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANAGOWDA N., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:27099 MFA No. 7753 of 2019

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

GOOLIGOWDA, S/O LATE NARAYANAGOWDA N., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶21

BOTH ARE R/O MADEGOWDANAHAHUNDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶22

VENKATESH, S/O GIRIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O MARASHETTAHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.SRIDHAR R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3 - SERVED)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.01.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.65/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC T.NARASIPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,63,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT WITH THE TRIBUNAL.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27099 MFA No. 7753 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

Heard learned counsel Sri. Pradeep B., appearing for

¶32

the appellant and learned counsel Sri. Sridhar R., appearing for respondents on admission.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.65/2010 dated 13.01.2014 by Senior Civil Judge & MACT at Tirumakudalu Narasipura, the Insurance Company is before this Court in appeal.

¶34

The factual matrix of the case that is relevant

¶35

for the purpose of this appeal is that, on 15.02.2010 at about 02.15 p.m. the deceased N.Narayanagowda along with one Ravi were travelling in the trailer of the Tractor bearing No.KA-09-T-5463 and 5464 along with Eucalyptus timber load on Mysore-Bannur main road. The driver of the said vehicle applied the brake and therefore, it turned turtle and fell down by the road side. The deceased N.Narayanagowda, who was sitting on the timber load on

¶36

the trailer fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. A criminal case was registered by the

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27099 MFA No. 7753 of 2019

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

concerned police and after investigation, a final report was filed indicting the driver of the Tractor for negligent driving. The petitioners who are the wife and son of the deceased - N.Narayanagowda filed the claim petition contending that the deceased was a sole bread earner of the family and was having income of Rs.10,000 per month and as such they are entitled for the compensation from the owner and insurer of the Tractor .

¶40

On issuance of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear before the Tribunal and as such they were placed exparte. The Tribunal has proceeded to record the testimony of the PW.1 and PW.2; and Exhibits.P.1 to 11 were marked. After framing appropriate points for consideration, it proceeded to consider the evidence on record and awarded compensation of Rs.5,63,000/and fastened the liability upon the

¶41

Insurance Company.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27099 MFA No. 7753 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the

¶45

Insurance Company has approached this Court in this appeal.

¶46

On being served with the notice, the

¶47

respondents have appeared through their counsel.

¶48

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company would submit that the Insurance Company had filed a miscellaneous petition under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to set aside the impugned judgment and permit it to file the written statement in the matter. It is contended that the said miscellaneous petition came to be dismissed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the defence of the Insurance Company was deceased N.Narayanagowda was a gratuitous passenger on the said Tractor and therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company should have been properly considered by the Tribunal. It is contended that the deceased N.Narayanagowda was travelling on the trailer of the

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:27099 MFA No. 7753 of 2019

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Tractor and therefore, he being not covered under the policy issued by it, the Tribunal could not have fastened the liability upon the appellant herein. Therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court in this matter.

¶53

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶54

respondents/claimants submits that the Tribunal has appropriately and correctly appreciated the evidence on record and it has awarded the compensation amount and as such there is no merit in this appeal.

¶55

It is pertinent to note that, the Insurance Company having exhausted its remedy under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, the reason that as it was placed exparte before the Tribunal and as such an opportunity has to be granted to it, cannot be agitated again in this appeal. It is a settled principle of law that if the appellant urging any of the grounds which are available under Order IX Rule 13 of

¶56

CPC, it has to be made before the concerned Court or the Tribunal. Such ground is not available in an appeal before the Appellate Court. If such ground taken up in a

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:27099 MFA No. 7753 of 2019

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

miscellaneous petition before the trial Court is rejected, the remedy is elsewhere by challenging such order before the appropriate Court. Therefore, the ground that the appellant was placed exparte and therefore, the matter has to be remanded to the Tribunal cannot be agitated before this Court in this appeal.

¶60

So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it is worth to note that the testimony of the PW.1 and also the FIR at Exhibit.P.1 show that the deceased had approached the complainant-Nagaraju to help him in loading the eucalyptus timber into the Tractor and he was taking the same for the construction of his house. Accordingly, the complainant was accompanying the deceased N.Narayanagowda and after loading the timber, the deceased N.Narayanagowda and Ravi were sitting on the trailer and were coming towards their house; on the way to their house, the accident occurred as stated above and N.Narayanagowda succumbed to the injuries.

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27099 MFA No. 7753 of 2019

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Such evidence as mentioned in the FIR is also

¶64

spoken by the PW.1 in her affidavit evidence. In the cross examination she has stated that she is not an eyewitness to the accident and therefore, whatever she states is on the basis of the complaint and the FIR.

¶65

The testimony of the PW.2 - Nagaraju, who happen to be the complainant, show that the deceased N.Narayanagowda and his son Ravi were sitting in the trailer. The complainant - Nagaraju was sitting on the mudguard of the Tractor. It is pertinent to note that, this testimony of the PW.2 and the police papers, which are produced before the Tribunal were properly considered by the Tribunal and it has come to the conclusion that the deceased N.Narayanagowda being the owner of the goods was travelling on the Tractor. Therefore, the appreciation of the available evidence by the Tribunal in holding that

¶66

the deceased N.Narayanagowda was travelling on the trailer of the Tractor with the goods cannot be disputed. When the deceased N.Narayanagowda was an owner of

¶67

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:27099 MFA No. 7753 of 2019

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

the goods, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and therefore, the Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the appellant - Insurance Company.

¶71

Under these circumstances, the appeal which

¶72

disputes that the deceased N.Narayanagowda was not the owner of goods or he was a gratuitous passenger cannot be accepted. Hence, the appeal is bereft of any merits and as such the same is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

¶73

The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶74

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶75

AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67

The Legal Manager v. Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Legal Manager v. Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Dhanalasmi @ Geetha Vs the Divisional Controller

M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri C Vinayaprasad

Sri. M.S. Chandru Vs Sri Venkataswamy

Smt Sheela Vs Smt Mamatha

Sri Niranjanamurthy Vs Sri Gurumallamma

Nagaraja Vs Gopal Naik