Allowed

The Manager v. H. K. Marigowda

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026WP/20623/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance Company challenged an execution order directing a balance deposit based on a defective memo of calculation. The Court quashed the order, set aside the impugned judgment, and allowed parties to file fresh calculations before the executing court, directing return of deposited funds to the execution court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; parties allowed to file fresh memo of calculation; deposited amount to be transmitted back to Executing Court.

The Manager Vs H. K. Marigowda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20413 WP No. 20623 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 20623 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD NO.2, 1^ST FLOOR, SNR COMPLEX, AYYAPPA TEMPLE ROAD, JALAHALLI CROSS, PEENYA BANGALORE - 560 058

¶10

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER THE MANAGER, M/S IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, NO.141, 5^TH FLOOR, SRI SHANTHI TOWERS III MAIN, EAST TO NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURINAGARA Digitally signed by BANGALORE - 43 AASEEFA REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT PARVEEN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

AND:

¶14

H.K. MARIGOWDA S/O LATE KAMARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT SANTHEBEEDI KYATHASANDRA TUMAKUR - 572 131.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. M.D. RYAKHA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20413 WP No. 20623 of 2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD MADE BY THE HONBLE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AND IV MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT TUMAKUR IN EP NO.2/2022 IN MVC NO.29/2012 AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND DIRECT THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE MEMO OF CALCULATION AS PER THE PROCEDURE AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order dated 06.08.2022 passed in Execution Case No.2/2020 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru.

¶24

Heard Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.D.Ryakha, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

Perused the material on record. The respondent has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injury suffered by him in a road traffic accident. The Tribunal in MVC No.29/2012 allowed the claim petition in part by awarding compensation of

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:20413 WP No. 20623 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Rs.2,30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

¶30

Being aggrieved, the claimant filed the Miscellaneous First Appeal in MFA No.1970/2015, which came to be allowed on 14.02.2018. The Tribunal after remand redetermined the compensation amount at Rs.12,38,200/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The respondent-claimant again assailed the said judgment and award of the Tribunal in MFA No.6200/2018 and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and award dated 08.07.2019 redetermined the compensation at Rs.26,62,400/-. It is to be noticed that the respondent-claimant was pursuing his Execution Petition in Execution Case No.2/2020. After the disposal of the appeal by the Division Bench of this Court, the claimant has filed a memo of calculation as per 'Annexure-F' dated 20.04.2022. The petitioner herein has also filed a memo of calculation at Annexure-G. The Trial Court under the impugned order accepted the memo of calculation filed by the claimant by directing the petitioner herein to deposit balance amount of Rs.2,87,950/-.

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20413 WP No. 20623 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

It is to be noticed that the memo of calculation filed

¶34

by the respondent-claimant at 'Annexure-F' prima facie indicates that the claimant has shown admissible amount including the interest as Rs.39,11,066/-. The said amount cannot be considered as admitted amount by the parties to the proceedings, as the petitioner has filed a memo of calculation indicating that on two occasions the amount has been deposited by the petitioner-Insurance Company and the said deposit though is shown as a deduction in the memo of calculation filed by the respondent, however there is no breakup with regard to the interest compounded in the said memo of calculation. Hence, based on such incorrect memo of calculation, the Trial Court proceeded to allow the memo of calculation filed by the respondent-claimant and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,87,950/-. I am of the considered view that the memo of calculation filed by the claimant is incorrect and without considering the fact that the said memo of calculation should contain the amount already deposited and also by deducting the interest portion and not by considering Rs.39,11,066/- as an admitted amount. In my considered

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20413 WP No. 20623 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

view, the matter is required to be reconsidered afresh by permitting the parties to file a fresh memo of calculation.

¶38

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.08.2022 in E.P.No.2/2020 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur is hereby set aside.

¶39

The parties are at liberty to file fresh memo of calculation and thereafter the Executing Court shall consider the same and dispose of in accordance with law.

¶40

The amount in deposit by the petitioner before this Court is directed to be transmitted back to the Executing Court and the Executing Court is directed not to release the said amount till adjudication of the memo of calculation.

¶41

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶43

¶44

CT:VS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

The Manager v. H. K. Marigowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. H. K. Marigowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Four Flavours LLP Vs Mr. Deepak Sindhe

Sri. B.A. Radakrishna Vs Sri B a Sirish

Smt. M Manjula Vs Sri Seenappa

Thaseem Ali Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Prakash S Rathod Vs State of Karnataka

Parvathamma Vs B.Jagadeesh