Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Kubera on 2 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968
MFA No. 100283 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100283 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE P B NO.114,
CRESENT COURT K M ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALORE-577101,
REP. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
NO.2 1ST FLOOR, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI,
R/BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KUBERA S/O. HANUMANTAPPA LAMBANI,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC. VEGATABLE VENDOR,
R/O. KAKOL TANDA, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.
Digitally signed
by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH
2. C H VENKATANARANAREDDY S/O. RAGHAVAREDDY,
YASHAVANT COURT OF
NARAYANKAR KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND CONTRACTOR,
R/O. CHETANA NILAYA, RAMESHWARA NAGAR,
2026.04.06
16:55:53
+0530
K M ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALORE-577101,
(OWNER LORRY NO.KA-18/A-1464)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH L. HEDGE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HARSHWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M.R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH MVC
NO.532/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
AMACT, RANEBENNUR, THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED
27.11.2013 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968
MFA No. 100283 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
ORAL JUDGMENT
United India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurer of Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-18-A-1464, has maintained this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.11.2013 passed in MVC No.532/2010 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Ranebennur (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. The claimant namely Sri Kubera maintained the petition in MVC No.532/2010 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of ₹18,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of Tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-18- A-1464 on the ground that on 24.02.2009 at about 07.00 a.m., he met with an accident due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the said vehicle and sustained grievous injuries.
3. On service of notice, both the owner and insurer of Tipper Lorry appeared before the Tribunal through their counsel, filed their objection and contested the petition. Thereafter, the Tribunal decided the claim petition on merits of the case. The -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968 MFA No. 100283 of 2014 HC-KAR Tribunal, based on the materials available on record held that the claimant has established having suffered the injuries on account of negligence on the part of the driver of Tipper Lorry and allowed the claim petition in part, holding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of ₹2,99,300/- together with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Being agreed by the said judgment and award, the insurer has come up with this appeal.
4. Sri Naganagouda R. Kuppelur, learned Counsel for the Insurer vehemently submitted that the Tribunal committed a serious error in placing reliance on misrepresented version of PW1 and proceeded to hold that the claimant has proved the accident, in spite of there being sufficient evidence on record to show that the claimant had sustained injuries due to fall from lorry cabin. He submitted that the insurer has adduced evidence before the Tribunal to show that the claimant had fallen from the lorry cabin and that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to the contents of the documents marked at Ex.R3 to R7. He contented that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is against the factual aspects of the case and contrary to law. As -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968 MFA No. 100283 of 2014 HC-KAR such, he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned award.
5. Per contra, Sri Vishwanath Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for Sri Harshavardana M. Patil, learned Counsel for the Claimant vigorously supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal and its conclusion on the ground that the contents of Wound Certificate marked at Ex.P7, the Discharge Summary marked at Ex.P10 coupled with nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, probabilise the case of the claimant. He further submitted that as on the date of accident, the claimant was aged about 18 years and the father of the claimant was busy in providing treatment to the claimant at different hospitals and as such there was some delay in lodging the complaint. In the said circumstances, he submitted that there is no substance in the objection raised by the insurer disputing the accident or in opposing the impugned award.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides, the only point that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the claimant had sustained injuries on account of actionable -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968 MFA No. 100283 of 2014 HC-KAR negligence on the part of the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-18-A-1464?
7. It is the definite case of the claimant that on 24.02.2009 at about 07.00 a.m., when he was sleeping near his tent in Medhini Jelly Crusher, Geramaradi Village of Tarikere Taluk, the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing No.KA-18-A-1464 rashly and negligently took the said vehicle in reverse direction and as a result, rear wheel of the tipper lorry ran over left side waist of the claimant and caused serious injuries to his kidney and other parts of the body. Ex.P2 goes to show that a formal complaint came to be lodged in connection with the incident only on 25.05.2009 at 07.00 p.m., wherein the complainant i.e, the father of claimant stated that because of lack of information and as he was busy in providing treatment to the son, he could not lodge the complaint immediately. The jurisdictional police investigated the case and on its completion, laid a charge sheet against the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing No.KA-18-A-1464 for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
8. The insurer is mainly relying on the contents of Ex.R3 i.e. In-patient Record of Nanjappa Hospital and the testimony of RW-2 namely Dr. R.D.Hegde, to dispute the alleged incident and -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968 MFA No. 100283 of 2014 HC-KAR to contend that the claimant had sustained injuries due to fall from lorry cabin. Perusal of the record reveals that RW-2 has adduced his evidence based on the contents of Ex.R3, wherein alleged history of injury is mentioned as "fall from lorry cabin".
9. It is the definite case of the claimant that immediately after the incident, initially he had been taken to Government Hospital, Tarikere, and then he was taken to Nanjappa Hospital in Shivamogga and Kasturba Hospital in Manipal, for higher treatment. The claimant has produced the Wound Certificate issued from Government Hospital, Tarikere at Ex.P7. This document contains history of injury as "RTA by Lorry". This document also contains a specific mention about concerned doctor having found "multiple abrasions (tyre marks) on the left side abdomen extending to left side of chest and left shoulder". Added to the above, the Discharge Summary issued from Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, produced at Ex.P10 contains history of illness as "patient sustained injury to abdomen, run over by lorry on 24.02.2009, was first sent to local hospital, then brought to KMC Hospital on 25.02.2009". Thereby, it becomes clear that immediately after the incident, the claimant or his attendant had informed the hospital authorities about the -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968 MFA No. 100283 of 2014 HC-KAR claimant having sustained injuries because of running over by lorry.
10. Further, if we consider the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant i.e. pancreatic, splenic and left renal injuries probabilise the contention of the claimant, having suffered those injuries because of running over of tipper lorry than fall from lorry cabin. It is also relevant to note that as per version of the claimant the incident had occurred on 24.02.2009 at about 07.00 a.m. and the wound certificate at Ex.P7 goes to show that he was examined by the doctor of Government Hospital, Tarikere on 24.02.2009 at 08.30 a.m. Whereas, the entries in the case sheet produced Ex.R3 claim that the claimant had suffered injuries on account of fall from lorry cabin, which occurred at around 09.00 a.m. Thus, on re-appreciating the materials available on record, this Court holds that the Tribunal has not committed any error in coming to conclusion that the claimant had met with an accident due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of tipper lorry bearing No.KA-18-A- 1464. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the "negative".
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968 MFA No. 100283 of 2014 HC-KAR
11. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is dismissed.
b) Consequently, the judgment and award dated 27.11.2013 passed in MVC No.532/2010 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Ranebennur is confirmed.
c) The amount deposited in the appeal, if any, and trial court record, be transmitted to concerned Tribunal at the earliest.
d) Draw an award accordingly.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE JTR CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 7