The Branch Manager Vs Sri K S Shivashankara @ Shivashankaraiah

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:33551 MFA No. 3906 of 2021

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3906 OF 2021 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KASTURU MANSION, TUMKUR. REP. BY THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, 144, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-01.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. K.S.SHIVASHANKARA @ SHIVASHANKARAIAH, S/O SIDDARAMAIAH @ SIDDARAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O KAREGODI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 201.

¶14

SRI. HALASHANKAR M.G., S/O M.R.GIRIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O 1ST CROSS, SAIBABA ROAD, TIPTUR TOWN, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.VINAYA KEERTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 SD AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33551 MFA No. 3906 of 2021

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1106/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JMFC, TIPTUR.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the liability in MVC No.1106/2016 dated 30.01.2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Tiputur.

¶22

The factual matrix of the case is that, respondent No.1-claimant met with an accident on 05.06.2015 at a place called I.B. Circle. At that time, he was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-44-J-8506. It is alleged that the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-44-Q-9542, by riding the same in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against respondent No.1-claimant motorcycle, resulting in the accident. In the accident, respondent No.1-claimant sustained head injuries and other injuries over the body. Thereafter, he filed the claim petition. The Tribunal on assessment of oral and documentary evidence,

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33551 MFA No. 3906 of 2021

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

partly allowed the claim petition and granted global compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 9%. The said judgment and award has been challenged by the Insurance Company.

¶26

Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellant– Insurance Company contended that, although respondent No.1–claimant possessed a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident, the licence authorized him only to drive an LMV (Cab) vehicles and not a motorcycle. Therefore, it was submitted that the claimant was not duly licensed to ride the motorcycle involved in the accident, and consequently, the liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company.

¶27

Though notice was duly served on respondent

¶28

No.1–claimant, he remained absent and unrepresented.

¶29

I have given my anxious consideration both on the submission and carefully perused the documents including the impugned judgment and award.

¶30

On careful reading of the record, the Tribunal, upon perusal of the material placed before it, arrived at the

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33551 MFA No. 3906 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

conclusion that Ex.R1 - the driving licence produced by RW1, clearly discloses that respondent No.1–claimant possessed a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. In the said licence, column No.1 indicates that the holder was authorized to ride/drive LMV (Cab) vehicles, including gear motorcycles. In such circumstances, the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company cannot be accepted, as the respondent No.1-claimant held a valid driving licence, including authorization to ride gear motorcycles.

¶34

Since the Insurance Company has not challenged the other aspects of the matter, I find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed .

¶35

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶36

GPG

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

The Branch Manager v. Sri K S Shivashankara @ Shivashankaraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Sri K S Shivashankara @ Shivashankaraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Javaraiah Vs Shashikala K

Annappa Vs Prakash G

Sri K J Madhu Vs District Surgeon

Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar Vs the Manager

The Divisional Controller Vs Ashok @ Ashoka G

Manjunath M Vs Mr Mahadevaiah