The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kalidasegowda

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:6527 MFA No. 647 of 2016

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 647 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.28, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PADMA S. HUTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

KALIDASEGOWDA S/O PARASEGOWDA AGE 53 YEARS Digitally signed by R/O HARAMBALLI VILLAGE SHARADAVANI B Location: High HOSA AGRAHARA HOBLI Court of Karnataka K.R. NAGAR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT NOW R/AT NEAR GREENWOOD SCHOOL, SINGAMMA EXTENSION HOUSING BOARD COLONY HOLENARASIPURA TOWN

¶10

C. ERESH S/O. CHANNABASAPPA, DEAD BY LRS,

¶11

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6527 MFA No. 647 of 2016

¶12

HC-KAR

¶13

NALINI,

¶14

W/O. LATE C. ERESH, AGE: 53 YEARS,

¶15

CHANDAN S/O. LATE C. ERESH, AGE: 29 YEARS,

¶16

CHETHAN D/O. LATE C. ERESH, AGE: 27 YEARS,

¶17

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/O. RAGHAVENDRA MATH ROAD, RAVINDRANAGAR, NEAR M.G. ROAD, HASSAN.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4 (ABSENT) SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (VC) R2 - NALINI SERVED)

¶20

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1275/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, AT HOLENARASIPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,42,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:6527 MFA No. 647 of 2016

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 24.11.2015, passed in MVC No.1275/2015 by the

¶28

Senior Civil Judge And Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Holenarasipura (for short 'Tribunal').

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶30

referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶31

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶32

the parties.

¶33

It is a case of vehicle damage and the date of

¶34

accident is 15.12.2012. The petitioner filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. But the Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.1,42,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of deposit and held that respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6527 MFA No. 647 of 2016

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

accordingly directed respondent no.4 - insurance company to deposit the amount.

¶38

Aggrieved by the said award, the insurance company preferred appeal and mainly contented that on 15.12.2012, while respondent no.1 was going on the left side of the road, on his Eicher vehicle bearing No.KA -097310 at Holenarasipura – Mysuru Road near Ankanahalli cross, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA13-2879 came in a rash and ignorant manner with high speed and dashed the Eicher vehicle. As a result, it was completely damaged.

¶39

The appellant company adduced the evidence of PW-2 and found that the driver of the offending vehicle was having alcoholic contents at 58.75 ml. in 100 ml. blood and that it is in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver of the offending vehicle was under the influence of alcohol exceeding the permissible limits, as per Section-185 of the MV Act and it is proved beyond

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6527 MFA No. 647 of 2016

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

doubt through FSL report and thus requested to set-aside the award of the Tribunal.

¶43

The Tribunal at paragraph 19 held that the driver was under intoxication, as per FSL report and it was also mentioned in the PM report, Exhibit-R4 and thus held that the driver-cum-owner of the offending lorry was under intoxication of alcohol. But later relied upon certain citations and came to the conclusion that the Insurance company is not entitled to be exonerated from the liability and accordingly fixed the liability against the insurance company.

¶44

Admittedly, it is a case of drunken driving and it is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy and insurance company also examined the doctor and proved the percentage of the alcohol, which is exceeding the permissible limits as per the Act. Therefore, this Court finds that insurance company is not liable to pay the

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6527 MFA No. 647 of 2016

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

compensation. However, finds it reasonable to invoke the principle of pay and recovery.

¶48

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The, insurance company is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- with interest rate of 6% p.a., within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the first petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. The insurance company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law.

¶49

The amount already deposited is to be transferred to the concerned MACT.

¶50

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

¶52

JJ

The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kalidasegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kalidasegowda

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

Mr. Ashok Kumar v Vs Smt. Meena S Alva

Amithananda Shetty Vs Arun Hegde

Sri. Kanaka. K. K. Vs Smt. Ramya. P

Wacom Company Limited Vs Cirel Systems Private Limited

Praveen Moejaes Gonsalves Vs Zeena Fernandes

Sri v Vasu Vs Sri Vinod Kumar.