Karnataka High Court
Royal Sundaram Gen. Insurance Co Ltd vs Shital on 18 August, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4722-DB
MFA No. 202136 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202136 OF 2025 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
ROYAL SUNDARAM GEN. INSURANCE CO LTD
IIIRD FLOOR, ABOVE IDBI BANK
MAHANT ARCADE, COURT ROAD
KHUBA PLOT, KALABURAGI.
THROUGH ITS MANAGER
NOW REPRESENTED BY
ASST. MANAGER LEGAL AND TP CLAIMS HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S S ASPALLI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by
BASALINGAPPA AND:
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH 1. SHITAL
COURT OF W/O VIKRAM BHALERAO
KARNATAKA
AGE 28 YRS, OCC.HOUSEHOLD
2. SHRESTH
S/O VIKRAM BHALERAO MASHALE
AGE 7 YRS
(MINOR U/G OF CLAIMANT No.1 NATURAL MOTHER)
3. SHOBHA
W/O MAHADEV BHALERAV
AGE 59 YRS, HOUSEHOLD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4722-DB
MFA No. 202136 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. MAHADEV
S/O SRIPATI BHALERAO
AGE 59 YRS, NIL
ALL R/O. NEMATWADI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST. SOLAPUR-413001.
5. M/S TANVI TOURS & TRAVELS
THROUGH ITS PROP. NEELESH
S/O SUNIL JADHAV
AGE MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS
R/O SR NO .176, FLAT No.404
WING F, SANJUDA COMPLEX DHAMALWADI
BHEKRAI NAGAR PUNE-41102.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO,
A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.820/2022 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT,
KALABURAGI, B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 29.08.2024 IN MVC NO.820/2022 PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT KALABURAGI,
BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
days in filing of above appeal and also filed IA No.2/2025
for stay and also this matter though listed for orders.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4722-DB
HC-KAR
2. Heard on merits.
3. The challenge made in this appeal is challenging
the award passed by Tribunal Court on the ground of
liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded by
the trial Court. During the course of argument, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant would submits that for
taking of income is concerned, there is no serious
disputed, but only contention raised before this Court is
that the tribunal committed an error in not noticing the
fact that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and
falsely implicated the vehicle. The main contention of the
counsel that accident was occurred at 1:15 PM on
02.02.2022 and they said Vikram Bhalorao was proceeding
towards Solapur from Pune in Motor Cycle No.MH-13/DF-
0662. When he came on Pune -Solapur road, near Rao
Saheb Deshamukh petrol pump near Temburni, the driver
of the Car bearing No.MH-12/PQ-0058 drove his vehicle in
rash and negligent manner dashed to said motor cycle. As
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4722-DB
HC-KAR
a result, he had sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to the injuries.
4. The main contention of the counsel that when
the accident was taken place in the midnight at 1:15 PM
and no one was present along with the deceased and
police have falsely implicated the vehicle. In order to
prove case, the claimant have produced the document of
the FIR, certified copy of first information and also the
certified copy of final report as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and
also the spot panchnama Ex.P4, certified copy of inquest
mahazar panchanama as Ex.P5, certified copy of post
mortem report as Ex.P7 and also certified copy of motor
vehicles accident report as ExP8.
5. The counsel would vehemently contend that
incident was taken place in the midnight and police have
falsely implicated the case. In order to prove the said
contention that vehicle was falsely implicated, the
insurance company except examining the RW1 only an
official witness, nothing is placed on record. Once the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4722-DB
HC-KAR
insurance company took the specific defense that vehicle
was falsely implicated, burden lies on the insurance
company to prove the same under Section 100 of Evidence
Act. The person who assert must prove the same, when
the claimants produced all documents before the Court
including investigation papers and also the chargesheet.
The taking of defense that vehicle was falsely implicated is
not enough and the same has to be proved by the
insurance company and having perused the material, even
investigation officer has not been summoned and
examined before the Court. Except the say of the
contention that the vehicle was falsely implicated nothing
is placed on record. When such being the case, the very
contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that
vehicle was falsely implicated cannot be accepted in the
absence of any material. There must be a cogent evidence
before the Court that vehicle was falsely implicated and
the fact that charge sheet was filed and investigation is
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4722-DB
HC-KAR
completed and charge sheet is also marked as Ex.P3
before the trial Court and not challenged the charge sheet.
6. The other contention of the counsel appearing
for the insurance company that the owner was placed ex-
parte and he was colluded with the claimant. In order to
prove the factum of collusion also nothing is placed on
record and merely because of the insured was placed ex-
pate and the same cannot be ground to comes to a
conclusion that he was colluded with the claimant by
drawing adverse inference.
7. Having considered the submission of the
counsel, we do not find any ground to admit and also
when there is no dispute with regard to quantum of
compensation is concerned that rightly taken the income
and also added future prospects and also taking note of all
heads the just and reasonable compensation is awarded.
Though contend that quantum is also on higher side and
counsel during the course of admission categorically stated
that with regard to quantum is concerned, no error is
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4722-DB
HC-KAR
committed by the tribunal. Hence, when such being the
case, question of issuing the notice to respondents doesn't
arise. Consequently the delay of 184 days is also not
properly explained. Hence, we do not find any ground to
admit and also condone the delay. Consequently, the
appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
SMP
CT:JLR
