Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Bharath on 1 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13528
MFA No. 9247 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9247 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
1ST FLOOR, MADHU COMPLEX
MYSORE ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN
HASSAN DISTRICT
BY REGIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560 027
BY ITS MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BHARATH
AGE 18 YEARS
Digitally S/O NANJAPPA K.R. @ NANDEESH
signed by AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
SUVARNA T S/O RAMEGOWDA
R/A KAMANAGHATTA VILAGE
Location: HIRISAVE HOBLI
HIGH CHANNARAYAPATANA TLAUK
COURT OF HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201
KARNATAKA
2. SRI T.K.KIRANKUMAR
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/A NO.NARIHALLI VILLAGE
HIRISAVE HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATANA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13528
MFA No. 9247 of 2013
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.89/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & MACT,
CHANNRAYAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,80,000/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FOR Rs.1,55,000/- (EXCLUDING FUTURE
MEDICAL EXPENSES OF Rs.25,000/-) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.89/2011
dated 18.07.2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Channarayapatna, the appellant/Insurance Company is before
this Court questioning the liability.
2. It is the case of respondent No.1/claimant that on
25.04.2011 at about 4:30 p.m., when the claimant was
proceeding near Didaga Tank Bund, at that time, the driver of
the auto-rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the claimant, as a result of it, he
had sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to
NC: 2025:KHC:13528
the Government Hospital, C.R.Patna and from there shifted to
Government Hospital, Hassan and underwent surgery and was
treated as inpatient and spent sufficient amount towards
medical and other incidental expenses.
3. The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the
accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and had granted
compensation of an amount of Rs.1,80,000/-.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company submits that it is not established that the vehicle is
involved and that the accident had happened because of the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
It is submitted that Exs.P-6 and P-13 i.e., the copy of the
wound certificate and the copy of the MLC Register extract do
not contain the registration number of the auto-rickshaw and
further the accident had occurred on 25.04.2011 and the
complaint was registered on 26.04.2011. It is submitted that all
these things shows that there is no involvement of the vehicle.
It is submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle is having
NC: 2025:KHC:13528
the license to drive the non-transport vehicle and the vehicle
that is involved in this case is admittedly a transport vehicle. As
such, on both on these accounts, the appellant/Insurance
Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1/claimant submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered
the evidence and rightly granted the compensation and no
grounds are made out seeking interference with the well
considered order passed by the Tribunal.
6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record. The accident had taken
place on 25.04.2011. The claimant was taken to the hospital,
according to him, in the very same auto. The Police have
registered the complaint and after a full-fledged investigation
had filed the charge sheet. It is the contention of the learned
counsel for the Insurance Company that Exs.P-6 and P-13 do
not contain the registration number of the offending vehicle, as
such the said vehicle is not involved in the accident. This Court
is not able to appreciate the said contention of the learned
NC: 2025:KHC:13528
counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. Not necessarily
in all the cases the medical records will contain the registration
number of the vehicle. Further, the Police records and the
medical records are consistent and the charge sheet was filed.
This Court finds no force in the argument of the learned counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company. Then coming to the LMV
non-transport and driving transport vehicle, in the light of the
law laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Limited1, the Insurance Company is liable to
pay the compensation. In the light of the above discussion, this
Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered
order passed by the trial Court.
7. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed.
i. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred
to the trial Court.
ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records
to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the
order passed by this Court forthwith without any
delay.
AIR 2017 SC 3668
NC: 2025:KHC:13528
iii. No costs.
iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG
