Disposed¶6

Sri Srinivasa G v. Sri G N Rajkumar

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2026WP/4173/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lok Adalat award passed without notice to contesting respondent; M.V.C.No.1640/2017, MACT Bengaluru; counter-claim of Rs.2,24,450/- for reimbursement; settlement of Rs.3,45,000/- on joint memo dated 10.02.2018; withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to pursue recovery against claimant; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Motor Vehicles Act; Reliance General Insurance Co.; road traffic accident 03.01.2017 car No.KA-43M-3153; High Court of Karnataka, 13 July 2026, M.G.S. Kamal J.; NC: 2026:KHC:35345.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings against respondent No.1 seeking recovery of the amount purportedly due and payable to him. ¶6

Sri Srinivasa G Vs Sri G N Rajkumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:35345 WP No. 4173 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.4173 OF 2019 (GM-AC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SRINIVASA G. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O. SRI GOPALAPPA R/O. PRASHANTH NAGAR KUDIS LAYOUT, DEVANAHALLI TOWN DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI V. R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI G. N. RAJKUMAR

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O. SRI G. P. NARAYANAPPA RESIDING AT WARD NO.22

¶16

3^RD CROSS, VENKATESHWARA THEATRE SHANTHINAGAR, DEVANAHALLI TOWN DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110

¶17

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO.28, 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI T. P. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35345 WP No. 4173 of 2019

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER/AWARD DATED 10.02.2018 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.1640/2017 ON THE FILE OF NATIONAL LOK ADALATH BENGALURU URBAN, BEFORE THE MACT AT BENGALURU, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE NATIONAL LOK ADALATH, BENGALURU URBAN, BEFORE THE MACT AT BENGALURU, TO RESTORE THE PETITION IN M.V.C.NO.1640/2017 AND CONSIDER THE COUNTER CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

1. Petitioner was the owner of car bearing registration No.KA-43M-3153, which had involved in a road traffic accident on 03.01.2017, resulting in injuries to respondent No.1 herein. That the respondent No.1 herein thus filed a claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, in MVC No.1640/2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru against respondent No.2-Insurance Company as well as the petitioner herein. Petitioner herein being respondent No.2 in the MVC said proceedings had apparently filed statement of objection along with his counter-claim for reimbursement of Rs.2,24,450/- from and out of the award amount to be paid to respondent No.1 herein by the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:35345 WP No. 4173 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

respondent No.2-Insurance Company on the premise that the said amount was paid by the petitioner herein on humanitarian grounds.

¶31

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, things stood thus the claimant-respondent No.1 herein and the respondent No.2-Insurance Company without notice to the petitioner had pre-poned the aforesaid MVC No. 1640/2017 and had sought for reference of the same to Lokadalat. The Tribunal without notifying the petitioner, had pre-poned and listed the matter before the Lokadalat. That on 10.02.2018, a joint memo came to be filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the said MVC No. 1640/2017 and the matter has been fully and finally settled for Rs.3,45,000/-.

¶32

3. He further submits that the said award without petitioner herein (respondent No.2 in the said M.V.C.No.1640/2017) being made part of lokadalat process is unsustainable and not binding, particularly when he had sought for reimbursement of amount of Rs.2,24,450/-.

¶33

4. However, after arguing the matter for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition, with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:35345 WP No. 4173 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

respondent No.1 seeking recovery of the amount, which is

¶38

purportedly due and payable to him.

¶39

5. Submission placed on record.

¶40