Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Shobhavati And Ors on 7 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8221
MFA No. 201167 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201167 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
IT'S BRANCH OFFICE/DIVISION OFFICE,
AT BILGUNDI MANSION, OPPOSITE TO
MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, STATION ROAD,
KALABURAGI, THROUGH IT'S AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. SHOBHAVATI
RENUKA W/O VIJAYAKUMR KUMBAR,
Location: HIGH AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/O HALHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR-585327.
2. RENUKA D/O VIJAYAKUMAR KUMBAR
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O HALHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR-585327.
3. ANKUSH S/O ARJUNRAO SAIGAON
AGE: 46 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8221
MFA No. 201167 of 2019
OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER OF
MOTOR CYCLE BEARING ENGINE
NO.HAEJG9H17209, CHASSIS NO.
MBLHA11ATG9H47871, R/O SAIGAON
VILLAGE, TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR-585328.
4. PRADEEP S/O ANKUSH BIRADAR
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: RIDER OF HF DELUXE
SILVER MOTOR CYCLE BEARING ENGINE
HAEJG9H17209 AND CHASSIS NO.
MBLHA11ATG9H47871, R/O DEVANAL VILLAGE,
TQ. BASAVAKALYAN, DIST. BIDAR-585327.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI M. SUDHAKAR RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 12.12.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT AT BIDAR
SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN, IN MVC NO.293/2017.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8221
MFA No. 201167 of 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal is by the insurance company
challenging the entire negligence fastened on the rider of
the offending bike, which is insured with the present
appellant/insurance company.
2. The claimants/respondents filed a claim petition
for having lost one Amar in a road traffic accident dated
30.03.2017. The claimants, who are mother and sister of
the deceased alleged in the claim petition that the accident
occurred due to sole negligence of the rider of the
offending bike and therefore claimed compensation.
3. The insurance company, on receipt of notice,
contested the proceedings and contended that since crime
was registered even against the deceased, indicating that
he had also contributed to the accident, the Tribunal ought
to have examined the contributory negligence. The
insurance company contends before this Court that the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8221
charge-sheet materials clearly reveal that the deceased
had also contributed as there was a head on collision and
therefore negligence needs to be re-examined by this
Court.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/insurance company and learned counsel
appearing for the respondents/claimants.
5. On examining the evidence led in by the
claimants, this Court is not inclined to accede to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
appellant/insurance company.
6. In a case of collision between two vehicles, the
sketch prepared on the spot by the investigating officer is a
crucial document which would clinch the controversy
relating to negligence. The Tribunal referring to the sketch
has recorded a categorical finding that the rider of the
offending bike has come to the extreme right side crossing
the median strip. This Court has examined the sketch,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8221
which is the part of the charge-sheet. The location of the
vehicle, the impact and collision clearly reveal that the rider
of the offending bike had virtually crossed the median line
of the road and has caused the accident by colliding with
the bike on which the deceased was proceeding. This
clinching evidence clearly demonstrates that accident
occurred due to due rash and negligent riding by the ride of
the offending bike and the deceased was not at all
responsible for the accident.
7. A feeble attempt by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/insurance company that the
rider of the bike did not possess driving license is not
substantiated before the Tribunal and no such issue had
arisen for consideration. Therefore, this contention cannot
be entertained at this juncture. However, this Court has
noticed that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate
of 9% and the same needs to be modified.
8. For the reasons stated supra, this Court passes
the following:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8221
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The finding on negligence is affirmed.
(iii) The appellant/insurance company is liable to
pay the entire compensation determined by the
Tribunal. However, insurance company shall pay
the compensation determined by the Tribunal
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till deposit.
(iv) The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- shall be
forthwith remitted to the Tribunal to enable the
claimants to withdraw the same.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
RSP
CT-SW
