Karnataka High Court
Lakshminarayan vs M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43903
MFA No. 2716 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2714 of 2014
MFA No. 2715 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2716 OF 2014(MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2714 OF 2014(MV-I)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2715 OF 2014(MV-I)
IN MFA NO.2716 OF 2014:
BETWEEN:
KU. LAHARI,
D/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS
R/A No.84, 4TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN, 3RD FLOOR
KODIGEHALLI, BANGALORE.
AND ALSO AT NO.202, HANABE VILLAGE AND POST
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
APPELLANT IS MINOR AND HENCE SHE IS REPRESENTED
BY HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. V. SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B S
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING
M. G. ROAD,BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
2. KAMALAKSHA GOWDA P.
S/O DHARANAPPA GOWDA,MAJOR,
NO.19/3, 3RD CROSS, LAKKASANDRA
NEAR GOVT LIBRARY,BANGALORE-560003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2-SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT AND UNREPRESENTED,
VIDE ORDER DATED 25/07/2019)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43903
MFA No. 2716 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2714 of 2014
MFA No. 2715 of 2014
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6350/2011 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. SCJ & MACT,
BANGALORE (SCCH-11), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.2714 OF 2014:
BETWEEN:
LAKSHMINARAYAN,
S/O SRIPATHAIAH,
AGED 37 YEARS,
R/A NO.84, 4TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN, 3RD FLOOR,
KODIGEHALLI, BANGALORE.
AND ALSO AT NO.202, HANABE VILLAGE AND POST,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. V. SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
2. KAMALAKSHA GOWDA P.
S/O. DHARANAPPA GOWDA, MAJOR,
NO.19/3, 3RD CROSS, LAKKASANDRA,
NEAR GOVT. LIBRARY, BANGALORE-560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED,
VIDE ORDER DATED 25/07/2019)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.6.2013 PASSED IN
MVC NO.6348/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SCJ AND
MACT, BANGALORE DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43903
MFA No. 2716 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2714 of 2014
MFA No. 2715 of 2014
IN MFA NO.2715 OF 2014:
BETWEEN:
SMT. YASHODA,
W/O LAKSHMINARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT NO.84, 4TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN,
3RD FLOOR, KODIGEHALLI, BANGALORE.
PERMANENT ADDRESS,
TALUK OFFICE ROAD, DODDABALLAPUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. V. SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING
M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
2. KAMALAKSHA GOWDA P.,
S/O DHARANAPPA GOWDA
MAJOR, NO.19/3, 3RD CROSS, LAKKASANDRA
NEAR GOVT LIBRARY, BANGALORE-560 003
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED,
VIDE ORDER DATED 25/07/2019)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.06.2013 PASSED IN
MVC NO.6349/2011 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. SCJ & MACT,
BANGALORE (SCCH-11), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:43903
MFA No. 2716 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2714 of 2014
MFA No. 2715 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT
Challenge in all the three appeals is the common award
that was passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru in MVC Nos.6348/2011, 6349/2011 and
6350/2011 dated 17.06.2013.
2. Heard Sri.K.V.Shyamaprasad, learned counsel for
the appellants in all the three appeals and also
Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel who appeared for respondent
No.1 in all the three matters. Despite of service of notice,
none represented respondent No.2 in all the three matters.
3. In relation to the same accident, three claim
applications were filed before the Tribunal concerned
claiming compensation. The matrix of the case as could be
perceived through the material available on record as
projected by the appellants before the Tribunal is that on
25.05.2011 at about 6.40 p.m. while the appellant in MFA
No.2714/2014 was driving the motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA-43-K-4013 with his wife i.e., the appellant
in MFA No.2715/2014 and the appellant in
NC: 2023:KHC:43903
MFA No.2716/2014 who is a minor child were present on the
motor cycle as pillion riders and while the motor cycle was
being driven slowly and carefully on NH-7 and when it
reached near Guvalakanahalli gate, an Innova car bearing
registration No.KA-01-AA-2052 which was proceeding ahead
of the motor cycle being driven by its driver came to halt
suddenly when the driver applied sudden brake. The rider of
the motor cycle therefore, lost control and hit the car and
due to the said impact, the persons present on the motor
cycle fell down and sustained injuries.
4. Respondent No.1-Insurance company resisted the
claim denying the manner of happening of accident as
projected by the appellants and consequently the liability.
5. The Tribunal which dealt with all the three
matters, framed issues, collected evidence and subjecting
the said evidence to scrutiny i.e., the evidence of Pws.1 to 4,
Exs.P1 to P5 and P7 and also the evidence of Rw.1 came to a
conclusion that the appellants failed to prove that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
NC: 2023:KHC:43903
the driver of the Innova car which is involved in the accident
and thereby dismissed all the three claim petitions.
Aggrieved by the findings given, the present appeals are
preferred.
6. Sri.K.V.Shyamaprasada, learned counsel arguing
for appellants submitted that when the driver of the vehicle
proceeding ahead applies sudden brake that too while
moving at a high speed and thereby stalls the movement of
the vehicle, the immediate vehicle moving in the same
direction would not be in a position to control the speed and
the unexpected stoppage of the forgoing vehicle would result
in its hit by the vehicle behind and the same thing happened
in the present case also. Learned counsel states that without
there being any reason for applying such sudden brake, the
vehicle was stopped by applying brake. Learned counsel also
argued that the manner of happening of the accident was
spoken to by Pws.1 and 2 and their evidence is corroborated
by the contents of FIR and charge sheet whose certified
copies were filed and marked but neither the documentary
evidence nor the oral evidence were taken into
NC: 2023:KHC:43903
consideration. Learned counsel also states that the contents
of the charge sheet filed carries more value than the sketch
which is marked as Ex.P4. Learned counsel also states that
even the contents of Ex.P4 supports the contents of the
charge sheet. Learned counsel states that basing on mere
assumptions and presumptions, all the three claim petitions
were dismissed and therefore, the present appeals are
preferred.
7. The submission made by Sri.B.Pradeep, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.1 on the other hand is
that the rider of the motor cycle was not holding valid and
effective driving license by the date of accident and he was
only holding a learners license in driving. Learned counsel
submits that had the rider of the motor cycle had got
sufficient expertise in driving the vehicle, he would have
taken care to stop his vehicle or to avoid collusion. Learned
counsel further states that the accident solely occurred due
to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle and thus the
Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim applications.
NC: 2023:KHC:43903
8. A perusal of the impugned award goes to show
that the Tribunal placed much reliance on Ex.P3-spot
panchanama, Ex.P4-sketch and Ex.P5-MVI report. However,
those documents does not reveal that the rider of the motor
cycle was at fault or that he was proceeding at a high speed
and in a rash and negligent manner as observed by the
Tribunal at paragraph 13 of the impugned order. Even the
investigating officer who investigated the case has not given
any finding to the effect that the rider of the motor cycle was
riding the motor cycle at a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner. Therefore, without any substantive
evidence on record the Tribunal ought not to have given a
finding to an effect that the rider of the motor cycle was
riding the motor cycle at a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner. At paragraph 14 of the impugned order
the Tribunal discussed about the license which the rider of
the motor cycle was holding. Admittedly, the rider of the
motor cycle has not produced his driving license. What he
has produced is only the LLR. Possessing an LLR, the rider of
the motor cycle was riding the motor cycle with his wife and
NC: 2023:KHC:43903
child as pillion riders. In case the rider of the motor cycle
had got sufficient expertise and experience, such collusion
would not have happened. Thus by all the material that is
available on record in the form of evidence, it is clear that
both the drivers i.e., the rider of the motor cycle and the
driver of the Innova car which is involved in the accident
have contributed to the accident to occur. Having regard to
the manner in which the accident occurred, it can safely be
held that the fault on part of both the drivers is equal.
9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
Tribunal, taking into consideration the contributory
negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle as
50%, ought to have dealt with the amount which the
claimants are entitled to as compensation and would have
ordered the respondents therein to pay 50%, of the amount
which they are liable to pay to the claimants.
10. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to allow
the appeal giving findings to that effect.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43903
11. Hence, all the three appeals are allowed. The
common order that is rendered by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC Nos.6348/2011,
6349/2011 and 6350/2011 dated 17.06.2013 is set aside.
Fixing contributory negligence as 50% on the part of the
rider of the motor cycle and holding that the respondents are
at liability to pay 50% of the compensation which the
claimants are entitled to, all the three matters are remanded
back to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru for
giving findings with regard to the extent of amount which the
claimants are entitled to and pass orders accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM
