The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri S Srikanta

¶1

1 -

¶2

MFA No. 8682 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8682 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., JLB ROAD, CHAMUNDIPURAM, MYSORE. REP. BY THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS HUB, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, NO.9, 2^ND FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REPRESENTED BY MANAGER.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR C.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI S. SRIKANTA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O SRI.SHESHAGIRI RAO, R/AT NO.933, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSORE CITY-570 001.

¶13

SRI.ANANDA AGED MAJOR, S/O LATE NAGAPPA, R/AT NO.195/5, KADEMANE, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 1^ST ‘B’ CROSS, 1^ST BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSORE CITY-570 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S; R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

2 -

¶17

MFA No. 8682 of 2018

¶18

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.737/2013 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSORE, (COURT OF THE JUDGE, ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE) PERUSE THE SAME AND SET-ASIDE/MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.05.2018 AND EXONERATE THE LIABILITY FIXED ON THE APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANY TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE 1^ST RESPONDENT HEREIN AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS DEEMED FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶21

CAV JUDGMENT

¶22

The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the MV Act’ for short) assailing the judgment and award dated 02.05.2018, passed in MVC No.737/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Additional Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysore)

¶23

3 -

¶24

MFA No. 8682 of 2018

¶25

(herein after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for) and set aside/ modify the claim petition in MVC No. 737/2013.

¶26

The appellant herein is the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal and the respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner/claimant before the Tribunal and the respondent No.2 herein is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal.

¶27

For convenience of reference, the parties herein are refereed to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶28

The claim petition is filed by the claimant/injured under section 166 of the MV Act against the respondents claiming total compensation amount Rs.9,00,000/- with cost and interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization towards injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 15.02.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-09-P3238.

¶29

The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-

¶30

4 -

¶31

MFA No. 8682 of 2018

¶32

The claimant filed MVC No.737/2013 under Section 166 of the MV Act, alleging that on 15.02.2013 at about 12.45 p.m., while riding motorcycle No.KA-09-EL-5300 from Kuvempu Nagar towards his house on New Kantharaja Urs Road near Adishwara Showroom, a car No.KA-09-P-3238 (insured car) came from Apollo Hospital, driven with one hand while talking on a mobile phone, and hit his motorcycle. He sustained grievous injuries to his left shoulder and right leg, and also claimed that the car driver reversed and fled without stopping. Therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest and costs from the owner and insurer of the car.

¶33

On service of notice, the owner of the car denied the accident, stating that the insured car was parked at Mysore Airport at the time of accident. The Insurance Company also appeared and denied the accident and disputed liability.

¶34

In order to substantiate his case, the claimant/petitioner got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at EXs.P1 to P13. On the other hand

¶35

5 -

¶36

MFA No. 8682 of 2018

¶37

the respondent No.1-Owner of the insured car examined himself as RW-1 and Administrative officer of the Insurance Company has been examined as RW-2 and got marked documents at Exs.R1 to R3.

¶38

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence and framed issues.

¶39

The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award

¶40

has partly allowed the claim petition with costs and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.43,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company and owner of the insured car to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶41

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal, without appreciating the evidence on record, fastened liability on the Insurance Company. The documentary evidence issued by the Mysore Airport

¶42

6 -

¶43

MFA No. 8682 of 2018

¶44

Authority proves that the insured car was parked at the Mysore Airport at the very time when the alleged accident was stated to have occurred in the heart of Mysore city, which is about 10–12 km away from the city. Therefore, the involvement of the insured car in the alleged accident is impossible. The Tribunal erred in rejecting this official record without any valid reason while simply accepting the police papers as conclusive proof. Further, the MVI report shows that there was no damage to the insured car, which also disproves the involvement of the insured car in alleged accident.

¶45

It is further contended that the police failed to establish the involvement of the insured car in the alleged accident, which resulted in the acquittal of the driver in the C.C.No.956/2013. The Tribunal failed to consider this vital material. The circumstances strongly indicate that the insured car was falsely implicated to secure wrongful compensation from the Insurance Company, especially when the actual cause of the claimant’s fall could have been due to his own negligence or might have dashed to

¶46

7 -

¶47

MFA No. 8682 of 2018

¶48

some other vehicle. The Tribunal has thus erred in fixing liability on the Insurance Company and awarding compensation based only on assumptions and presumptions. The Insurance Company, being a custodian of public funds, cannot be compelled to pay compensation when the involvement of the insured car has not been proved.

¶49

It is also contended by the Insurance Company that the insured car was not at all involved in the accident occurred, and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner or pay any compensation.

¶50

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material placed on record.

¶51

The Tribunal has partly allowed the MVC with cost and awarded global compensation of Rs.43,000/along with 6% interest. The Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the documents produced by the parties, specifically letter issued by Airport authorities regarding

¶52

8 -

¶53

MFA No. 8682 of 2018

¶54

details of the vehicles which entered the Airport on 15.02.2013 produced as Ex.R2 and without discussing case on merits and assigning proper reasons, has partly allowed the appeal and awarded global compensation. Therefore, the matter has to be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the matter, in accordance with law.

¶55

In the result, the following Order is passed:

¶56

(a) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 23.01.2018 in MVC No.47/2014, passed by the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, at Mysuru, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

¶57

(b) The Tribunal giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and produce documents and considering the documents, specifically, letter issued by Airport authorities regarding details of the vehicles which entered the Airport on 15.02.2013 produced as Ex.R2, shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible i.e., within the period of six months from the date of re-opening of the case.

¶58

9 -

¶59

MFA No. 8682 of 2018

¶60

(c) The parties shall appear before the Tribunal without notice, after four weeks from the date of receipt of this Judgment.

¶61

(d) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith, along with TCR and a certified copy of the Judgment passed by this Court forthwith.

¶62

Accordingly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is

¶63

disposed of.

¶64

Sd/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶65

BNV

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri S Srikanta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri S Srikanta

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

Abdul Sathar Vs Jagadish Alva

Sri Mallaiah Vs Kamalamma

Smt P Susheelamma Vs Sri P Kiran

Smt.K.Nagarathna Vs Sujin Susheel

M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Vs Sri Chandrashekar D S

Nataraj G Vs Nagendra Reddy a