Dismissed¶63

Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar v. the Manager

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2026MFA.CROB/120/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, 06-07-2026, Justice Rajesh Rai K — MFA No.3497/2020 (insurer) and MFA CROB No.120/2021 (claimant) against award dated 13.12.2019 in MVC No.4938/2018 (SCCH-4 Bengaluru). Cleaner-status of injured claimant upheld on FIR/complaint/charge sheet despite insurer's driver-negligence plea based on MLC; insurer's liability upheld; quantum of Rs.4,56,000 with 6% interest held just, enhancement refused; both appeals dismissed; deposit transmitted to Tribunal. Filed u/S 173(1) MV Act; cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to either side; the amount in deposit was directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal. ¶63

Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar Vs the Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief to either side; the amount in deposit was directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the claimant-Dinesh was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident (and thus barred by his own negligence from compensation), as contended by the Insurance Company relying on Ex.P16 case sheet history and MLC, or whether he was travelling as a cleaner with respondent No.2-Rajanna driving, fixing liability on the insurer. +1 more

¶50

Court's answer

The Insurance Company's contention that the claimant was driving and was disqualified by his own negligence cannot be accepted: the investigation papers — complaint Ex.P2, FIR Ex.P1 and charge sheet Ex.P7 — clearly depict that respondent No.2-Rajanna was driving and the claimant was travelling as a cleaner; further, RW.1 (the insurer's authorized representative) stated nothing about the accident.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal was justified in holding that the claimant was an inmate of the vehicle entitled to compensation, and the compensation awarded to him is justified; the occurrence of the accident and policy coverage being undisputed, the insurer's challenge to liability fails.

¶61

Key takeaways

On quantum, the Tribunal, having regard to the claimant's age, avocation and the injuries sustained, rightly awarded just compensation on all heads; the award requires no interference by this Court.ratio¶62
The claimant made out no case for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal; the cross-objection therefore fails.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Claims — Liability of insurer and quantum. Claimant-Dinesh, engaged as a cleaner, was injured on 28.04.2018 when the Ashok Leyland goods vehicle KA-06/C-5007 in which he was travelling, driven by respondent No.2-Rajanna, hit car KA-51/MJ-6144 on NH-234 near Anjauru Village. The Tribunal (XVIII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, SCCH-4) partly allowed MVC No.4938/2018 awarding Rs.4,56,000/- with 6% p.a. interest. The insurer appealed contending the claimant was actually the driver and disqualified by his own negligence, relying on Ex.P16 case sheet history and MLC; the claimant sought enhancement. HELD: (i) the complaint (Ex.P2), FIR (Ex.P1) and charge sheet (Ex.P7) clearly show respondent No.2 was driving and the claimant was travelling as a cleaner; the insurer's witness RW.1 deposed nothing about the accident; the claimant was an inmate of the vehicle entitled to compensation, and the Tribunal's liability finding stands; (ii) the award, assessed on the claimant's age, avocation and injuries, was just compensation requiring no interference, and no case for enhancement was made out. Both the MFA and the cross-objection were dismissed and the amount in deposit was ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal. (Oral judgment by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Rai K, High Court of Karnataka, dated 06.07.2026.)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:34397 MFA No. 3497 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 120 of 2021

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3497 OF 2020(MV-I)

¶9

C/W

¶10

MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 120 OF 2021(MV-I)

¶11

IN MFA No. 3497/2020

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GIC LTD SNS CORNER BUILDING 3^RD FLOOR, OPP. BOWRING HOSPITAL SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027 NOW REP BY ITS THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GIC LTD., NO.4/5, 3^RD FLOOR, S.V ARCADE, BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD OPP TO BANNERGHATTA ROAD IIM POST, BANGALORE-560 076.

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

DINESH @ DINESH KUMAR S/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT KODIHALLIPALYA BHAKTHARAHALLI POST KOTHAGERE HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:34397 MFA No. 3497 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 120 of 2021

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

RAJANNA L R S/O RANGAIAH NO.17/A, LALAPURA VILLAGE HERUR POST, KASABA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 - RAJANNA L.R SERVED AND UNREPRESETED)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 13.12.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.4938/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-4), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,56,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶25

IN MFA.CROB NO. 120/2021

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

DINESH @ DINESH KUMAR S/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT KODIHALLIPALYA BHAKTHARAHALLI POST KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶28

...CROSS OBJECTOR

¶29

(BY SRI. K.V. NAIK KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., S.N.S CORNER BUILDING, 3^RD FLOOR, OPP: BOWRING HOSPITAL SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027 (INSURE OF OFFENDED VEHICLE ASHOK LEYLAND AND GOODS VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-06-C-5007)

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34397 MFA No. 3497 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 120 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

MR. RAJANNA L.R S/O RANGAIAH NO.17/A, LALAPURA VILLAGE HERUR POST, KASABA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. (RC OWNER CUM DRIVER OF OFFENDED VEHICLE ASHOK LEYLAND GOODS VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-06-C-5007)

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 08.07.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶37

THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 R/W SECTION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC.NO. 4938/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-4, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶38

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

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 13.12.2019 passed in MVC No.4938/2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City (SCCH-4) (for short “Tribunal”). While MFA No.3497/2020 is by the Insurance Company challenging the liability and quantum of compensation, MFA CROB No.120/2021 is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34397 MFA No. 3497 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 120 of 2021

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The factual matrix of the case are that, on 28.04.2018 at about 2:50 p.m., the claimant-Dinesh was traveling in Ashok Leyland goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-06/C-5007 as a cleaner, which was driven by one Rajanna i.e., respondent No.2. When they reached NH-234 near Anjauru Village from Mudigere side towards Beluru, respondent No.2 hit against a car bearing registration No.KA-51/MJ-6144. Due to the impact, both the vehicles got damaged and claimant sustained injuries, which resulted in fracture along with other injuries over the body. Thereafter, the claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶45

The Tribunal, on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,56,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the same, the Insurance Company filed MFA No.3497/2020 challenging the liability and compensation, whereas the claimant filed MFA CROB No.120/2021 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34397 MFA No. 3497 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 120 of 2021

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Heard learned counsel Sri. B.Pradeep for the

¶49

Insurance Company and learned counsel Sri K.V. Naik for the claimant in both the appeals.

¶50

Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the injuredclaimant was the driver at the time of accident and after the accident, he was projected as a cleaner of vehicle. By placing reliance on Ex.P16-case sheet history and MLC, he submits that these documents clearly depict that the claimant-Dinesh was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. As such, according to him, he is not entitled for any compensation with regard to self negligence. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company by dismissing the appeal filed by the claimant.

¶51

Per contra , learned counsel for the claimant

¶52

contended that the Tribunal upon meticulous examination of the materials on record, rightly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. According to him, the charge sheet-Ex.P7 clearly reveals that respondent No.2 was the driver of the vehicle and the claimant was the cleaner of the said vehicle. Nevertheless, the Insurance Company has not challenged the

¶53

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34397 MFA No. 3497 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 120 of 2021

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

charge sheet. He also contended that the Tribunal has erred while granting compensation on all heads, since the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager. As such, he prays to allow his appeal by dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

¶56

I have heard learned counsel for the respective

¶57

parties and perused the impugned judgment and award and documents made available before this Court.

¶58

As could be gathered from records, the occurrence of the accident and coverage of insurance policy to the offending vehicle are not in dispute. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the claimant was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and for his negligent act, he is not entitled for any compensation cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the investigation papers i.e., complaint-Ex.P2, FIR-Ex.P1 and charge sheet-Ex.P7 clearly depict that, at the time of accident, respondent No.2Rajanna was driving the vehicle and the claimant was traveling as a cleaner. Though the Insurance Company examined RW.1, who was the authorized person of the Insurance Company, he has not stated anything about the accident. In such

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:34397 MFA No. 3497 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 120 of 2021

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

circumstances, I am of the considered view, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the claimant was the inmate of the vehicle and he is entitled for the compensation. As such, the compensation awarded to the claimant is justified.

¶62

Though it is contended by learned counsel for the claimant that the Tribunal has erred in granting meager compensation, on careful examination of entire materials on record, the Tribunal upon consideration of the age, avocation and injuries sustained by the claimant, rightly awarded just compensation on all heads, which requires no interference at the hands of this Court. As such, the claimant also does not made out any case to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶63

10. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed .

¶64

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶65

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶66

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar v. the Manager

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

Javaraiah Vs Shashikala K

Annappa Vs Prakash G

Sri K J Madhu Vs District Surgeon

The Branch Manager Vs Sri K S Shivashankara @ Shivashankaraiah

The Divisional Controller Vs Ashok @ Ashoka G

Manjunath M Vs Mr Mahadevaiah