The Regional Manager Vs Santhosha K T

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8475 MFA No. 1819 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1819 OF 2020(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE REGIONAL MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REGIONAL OFFICE MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, L.H.H ROAD, HAMPANAKATTE MANGALURU NOR REP ITS LEGAL MANAGER M/S ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD NO.89, 2^ND FLOOR SVR COMPLEX HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA BANGALORE-560 068

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SANTHOSHA K T S/O THAMMAIAH NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT KRISHNAPURADA KOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT SINCE DEAD REP BY LRS

¶13

1a) THAMMAIAH S/O GOVINDAGOWDA

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:8475 MFA No. 1819 of 2020

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶17

1b) SMT. NAGAMANI W/O THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶18

BOTH ARE R/AT KRISHNAPURADA KOPPALU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT

¶19

MOHAMMAD UNAS S/O MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE APPANNA HOTEL ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA TUMKUR

¶20

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TUMKUR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP SOCIETY UNION MALLASANDRA, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR LR’S OF R1(A&B) R2 SERVED

¶23

SRI. RAMACHANDAR DESU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.14.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO,.1096/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,87,815/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8475 MFA No. 1819 of 2020

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

The present appeal has been filed seeking to challenge

¶31

the judgment and award dated 14.11.2019 in MVC No.1096/2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”). By the Impugned Award, respondent No.1/claimant has been granted compensation in the sum of Rs.1,87,815/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶32

None has appeared for the respondents despite service in the matter. Given the pendency of this matter for almost six years, this Court deems it apposite to take up this matter for hearing.

¶33

The brief facts are, that on 22.04.2015 at around 2.30.P.M., when the claimant Santhosh was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02 HU-4070 along his friend Lingaraju on the National Highway 206, the driver of the Bolero Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-06 D 2613, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and collided with the

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8475 MFA No. 1819 of 2020

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

bike of the respondent No.1/claimant. Due to this accident, the respondent No.1/claimant sustained injuries. After the accident, the respondent No.1/claimant was admitted to the hospital and he was treated as an inpatient.

¶37

3.1. A Claim petition was filed by the respondent No.1/claimant before the learned Tribunal against Respondent No.1/driver, respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Although respondents 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel, they did not file any written statement before learned Tribunal. The Insurance Company/respondent No.3 before the learned Tribunal filed its written statement.

¶38

Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:

¶39

“1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in an accident which was occurred on 22.04.2015 at about 2.30 p.m. near Seegepalya and Rajathadripura gate, K.B.Cross, Tumkur, due to rash

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8475 MFA No. 1819 of 2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

and negligent driving of Bolero Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-06 D-2613 by its driver?

¶43

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what quantum and from whom?

¶44

3. What Order or Award?”

¶45

4.1. The respondent No.1/claimant examined himself as

¶46

the PW.1 and examined one eyewitness as PW.2. In addition, the legal retainer of appellant/Insurance Company was examined as RW.1. The learned Tribunal

¶47

after examining the evidence produced by the parties awarded the following compensation to the claimants.

¶48

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
01.	Pain shock and agony	40,000-00
02.	Medical expenses	1,30,815-00
03.	Food, diet, nourishment, conveyance and other incidental expenses	20,000-00
04.	Loss of income during treatment period	14,000-00
05.	Disappointment and discomfort and loss of amenities Total	10,000-00 1,87,815-00

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:8475 MFA No. 1819 of 2020

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that he has one ground of challenge namely that the vehicle was not in fact involved in the accident and the accident was merely a creation of the claimants. In this behalf, he seeks to rely upon two documents Ex.P7 and Ex.R3 which set out that the deceased Lingaraju was the rider of the vehicle and the injured Santosh was the pillion rider. However, in the claim petition, it was stated that the deceased was the pillion rider and the injured was the rider.

¶53

The examination of the record shows the claimant examined himself as PW.1. He also examined one Sri. Santhosh Kumar as PW.2 who was a passer-by and witnessed the accident. In support of his claim, the claimant filed several documents which were exhibited as Ex.P1 to Ex.P58 which include the FIR (Ex.P1), the complaint (Ex.P2), charge sheet (Ex.P3) and spot mahazar (Ex.P4), the IMV report as well as the wound certificate as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 separately.

¶54

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:8475 MFA No. 1819 of 2020

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contends that insured vehicle was not involved in the accident. However, this aspect was also raised by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal. It is the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company that the injuries occurred due to a ‘self-fall’. Reliance on this behalf is placed on Ex.R3 which is the hospital report of the rider of the two wheeler Lingaraju at the time of his admission into the hospital.

¶57

Although the owner as well as driver of the insured vehicle were served and appeared before the learned Tribunal, they did not file any written statement denying their involvement in the accident nor did they give any evidence that their vehicle was not involved.

¶58

The IMV report which is exhibited at Ex.P6 shows the involvement of the vehicle. The particulars of both vehicles have also been set out in the IMV report as follows:

¶59

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:8475 MFA No. 1819 of 2020

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

6. Particulars of Vehicles: a)Number of Vehicles Two involved: KA 06 D 2613 KA 02 HU 407 b) Registration Number: LGV MC with c) Class of Vehicle: Mahendra Goods Hero Passion Pro d) Mark: White + Yellow Red + Black

¶62

b) Registration Number: c) Class of Vehicle: d) Mark:

¶63

e) Colour:

¶64

9.1. The IMV report also sets out that due to the impact

¶65

of the accident, when inspected, the front right headlight,

¶66

indicator assembly, windscreen glass, front wheel mud guard etc. are damaged. The relevant extract of the mechanical conditions of the vehicle is also set out below.

¶67

“7. Mechanical condition of the vehicle : Due to compact of Accident when inspected:

¶68

KA 06 D 2613 LGV :- Front right head light, indicator assembly broken, windscreen glass cracked and broken on right side, front wheel mudguard arch and fender torn and damaged, steering system and suspension system on front right wheel side damaged and bent.

¶69

KA 02 HU 4070-MC with gear: Head light and mook, Front Right Indicator and body shields broken. Front forks, right side crash guard, petrol tank, handle bar and tail pipe bent and damaged, foot brake peddle and linkage found bent, right front foot rest bent.

¶70

Brake system: Tested both motor vehicles on stationary condition found brake system of KA-6 D 2613 LGV is in order & brake system “except Brake foot peddle and linking of KA-02-HU 4070 motor cycle bent and damaged due to accident with brake component are in order”

¶71

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶72

9 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:8475 MFA No. 1819 of 2020

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

9.2. The IMV report also sets out that the accident is not

¶76

due to any mechanical failure, but as there were two vehicles involved in the accident.

¶77

The record also reflects that the learned Tribunal has found that during the cross-examination of PW.1, learned the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has contended that the deceased Lingaraju himself drove at a high speed and collided with the offending vehicle coming from the opposite direction.

¶78

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the suggestion was in fact made in the cross-examination and it was denied. However, he reiterates that the Court must rely upon the medical records alone.

¶79

This Court is unable to agree with the contention of the appellant’s counsel given that there is overwhelming evidence that there was an accident which is supported not only by the statements of the claimants but also of an

¶80