[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The General Manager vs Reshmabanu W/O. Hasanapeer on 17 December, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
MFA No.100827/2020
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
MFA No.103905/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100827 OF 2020
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103477 OF 2019
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103905 OF 2019
IN MFA NO.100827/2020
BETWEEN
SRINIVAS R. S/O. RUDRAPPA
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
R/O : @ 20, BAIRANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HIREMALALI POST, CHANNAGIRI,
DIST : DAVANAGERE-577001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
1. RESHMABANU W/O. HASANAPEER
Date: 2025.12.18
11:05:39 +0530
AGE : 37 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA,
NOW @ C/O: KABEERSAB KALEGUDUSAB
OF HALAGERI
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
2. SUHANA Y.H. D/O. HASANAPEER
AGE : 18 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT,
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA,
NOW @ C/O: KABEERSAB KALEGUDUSAB
OF HALAGERI
TQ : RANEBENNUR, DIST : HAVERI-581110.
-2-
MFA No.100827/2020
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
MFA No.103905/2019
3. RUHINA Y.H. D/O. HASANAPEER
AGE : 16 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT,
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA,
NOW @ C/O: KABEERSAB KALEGUDUSAB
OF HALAGERI
TQ : RANEBENNUR, DIST : HAVERI-581110.
4. MUFLIYA Y.H. D/O. HASANAPEER
AGE : 9 YEARS, OCC : NIL,
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA,
NOW @ C/O: KABEERSAB KALEGUDUSAB
OF HALAGERI
TQ : RANEBENNUR, DIST : HAVERI-581110.
[R4 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1
MOTHER GUARDIAN]
5. NOORJAHAN W/O. KASIMASAB
AGE : 79 YEARS, OCC : NIL,
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA,
NOW @ C/O: KABEERSAB KALEGUDUSAB
OF HALAGERI
TQ : RANEBENNUR, DIST : HAVERI-581110.
6. THE GENERAL MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DESAI GALLI, NEAR, VIVEKANDA HOSPITAL,
DESHAPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANJANEYA M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R6.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO FIX
THE LIABILITY ON RESPONDENT NO.6 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL
AS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.08.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.465/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE
II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR
-3-
MFA No.100827/2020
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
MFA No.103905/2019
VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.103477/2019
BETWEEN
1. RESHMABANU W/O. HASANAPEER
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA,
NOW @ C/O. KABEERSAB
KALEGUDUSAB OF HALAGERI,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581208.
2. SUHAN Y.H. D/O. HASANAPEER
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA,
NOW @ C/O. KABEERSAB
KALEGUDUSAB OF HALAGERI,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581208.
3. RUHINA Y.H. D/O. HASANAPEER
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA,
NOW @ C/O. KABEERSAB
KALEGUDUSAB OF HALAGERI,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581208.
4. MUFLIYA Y.H. D/O HASANAPEER
AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA,
NOW @ C/O KABEERSAB
KALEGUDUSAB OF HALAGERI,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581208.
SINCE THE APPELLANT 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT NO.1
5. NOORJAHAN W/O. KASIMSAB
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA,
-4-
MFA No.100827/2020
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
MFA No.103905/2019
NOW @ C/O. KABEERSAB
KALEGUDUSAB OF HALAGERI,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581208.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ANJANEYA M., ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. SRINIVAS R. S/O. RUDRAPPA
OCC: OWNER OF THE OFFENDING LORRY,
#20, BAIRANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HIREMALALI,
POST: CHANNAGIRI,
DIST: DAVANAGERE-577213.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
DESAI GALLI, NEAR VEVEKANDA HOSPITAL,
DESHAPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - NOTICE DIPSNSED WITH.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.08.2019,
PASSED IN MVC NO.465/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE
II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, BY ALLOWING THE
THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.103905/2019
BETWEEN
THE GENERAL MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DESAI GALLI, NEAR VIVEKANANDA HOSPITAL,
DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580023.
-5-
MFA No.100827/2020
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
MFA No.103905/2019
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RESHMABANU W/O. HASANAPEER,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA NOW @
C/O: KABEERSAB KALEGUDUSAB OF
HALAGERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-570021.
2. SUHAN Y.H. D/O. HASANAPEER,
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA NOW @
C/O. KABEERSAB KALEGUDUSAB OF
HALAGERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-570021.
3. RUHINA Y.H. D/O. HASANAPEER,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA NOW @
C/O. KABEERSAB KALEGUDUSAB OF
HALAGERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-570021.
4. MUFLIYA Y.H. D/O. HASANAPEER,
AGE: 08 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA NOW @
C/O. KABEERSAB KALEGUDUSAB OF
HALAGERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-570021.
RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 4 ARE
MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR
MOTHER M/G RESPONDENT NO.1.
5. NOORJAHAN W/O. KASIMSAB,
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
-6-
MFA No.100827/2020
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
MFA No.103905/2019
R/O: SHIVAMOGGA NOW @
C/O. KABEERSAB KALEGUDUSAB OF
HALAGERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-570021.
6. SRINIVASA R. S/O. RUDRAPPA,
OCC: OWNER OF THE OFFENDING
LORRY # 20 BAIRANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HIREMALALI POST, CHANNAGIRI,
DIST: DAVANAGERE-540028.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANJANEYA M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.08.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.465/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE
II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, BY EXONERATING
THE APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANY FROM THE LIABILITY
AND REDUCING THE COMPENSATION BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
These are appeals filed by the owner, claimants and
insurer, respectively, under section 173(1) of the Motor
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), challenging the
judgment and award passed in MVC No.465/2016, dated
14.08.2019, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge
and Additional MACT, Ranebennur (for short, the Tribunal).
2. The owner has challenged the judgment and
award insofar as direction issued to insurer to pay the
compensation and to recover the same from the owner. The
claimants have filed the appeal being not satisfied with the
quantum of compensation amount awarded by the tribunal.
Insurer has filed the appeal challenging the liability and
quantum, contending that the vehicle in question is not
involved in the alleged accident.
3. The parties would be referred with their ranks, as
they were before the tribunal, for the sake of convenience
and clarity.
4. The claimants being the wife, children and
mother of deceased have filed the claim petition under
section 166 of the Act, contending that husband of claimant
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
No.1, Hasanpeer U.K. S/o.Kasimsab, died in a road traffic
accident that occurred on 25.08.2014, involving goods lorry
bearing registration No.KA-14/A-2930 and KA-16/A-2266.
The contention of claimants is that husband of claimant
No.1 was driver cum owner of the goods lorry bearing
registration No.KA-14/A-2930 and they have stopped the
vehicle due to mechanical defect near Hanchinasiddapur
village on Shivamogga-Channagiri road by the side of the
road by putting indicator lights and Hasanpeer has informed
mechanic over phone who was coming from Shivamogga to
the spot; at that time deceased-Hasanpeer, Allabaksha and
Rudresh were standing behind the lorry and waiting for
mechanic, at about 22.45 hours, a Canter lorry came from
Shivamogga side, to the extreme left side without observing
that the persons were standing by the side of road and
dashed against Hasanpeer, Allabaksh and also damaged the
lorry of Hasanpeer. The driver of Canter lorry escaped from
the spot. In that accident both Hasanpeer and Allabaksh
were injured and they could not make out the vehicle
number due to darkness. Immediately Hassanpeer was
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
shifted to District Hospital, Shivamogga and then cleaner -
Allabaksh was shifted to Government Hospital, Channagiri in
an ambulance. Hasanpeer succumbed to injuries on next
day morning at 06.00 a.m.
5. Claimants would contend that Hasanpeer was
working as driver, owned the lorry and he is the only
earning member of the family and was getting income of
₹3,000-4,000 per day. They contended that the Canter
lorry, which caused the accident bearing registration
No.KA-16/A-2266 belongs to respondent No.1 and it is
validly insured with respondent No.2 and policy was in force
as on the date of accident.
6. On service of notice, respondent No.2 appeared
through its counsel and filed its objection statement,
wherein it denied the petition averments in toto.
Respondent No.2 took contention that the driver of said
Canter lorry was not holding valid driving licence as on the
date of accident and thus, respondent No.1 has violated the
first and foremost condition of the policy by allowing an
- 10 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
unauthorised person to drive and thus, respondent No.2 is
not liable to pay compensation. It further took contention
that Channagiri Police have filed charge sheet against the
driver alleging the offences punishable under Section 3 read
with section 181 of M.V.Act and have filed charge sheet
against owner under Section 4 read with section 180 of
M.V.Act and thus, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any
compensation. This is a hit and run case and unnecessarily
involved the vehicle of respondent No.1 colluding with police
and thus, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any
compensation. It also took other defences and prayed for
dismissal of petition with costs.
7. On behalf of claimants, claimant No.1 was
examined as PW.1, the complainant, eye witness was
examined as PW.2, the mechanic who did tinkering work to
the offending vehicle as PW.3 and the Investigating Officer
who has filed charge sheet as PW.4, got marked Exs.P.1 to
P.30 and closed their side before the Tribunal. On behalf of
respondents, two witnesses are examined as RW.1 and
- 11 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
RW.2 apart from marking Exs.R.1 to R.6 and closed their
side.
8. After recording evidence of both sides and
hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that claimants are entitled for compensation in
respect of the accidental death of husband of claimant No.1
totally amounting to ₹16,76,600/- with interest at 9% per
annum from the date of claim petition till its realization
holding that the claimants have established the involvement
of the Canter lorry bearing No.KA-16/A-2266 in the
accident.
9. Heard Sri Anjaneya M., learned counsel for
claimants, Sri Girish S. Hiremath, learned counsel for owner
of the offending lorry and Sri G.N.Raichur, learned counsel
for the insurer.
10. Learned counsel for the claimants
Sri Anjaneya M., would submit that, not satisfied with the
aforesaid award of compensation, claimants have preferred
- 12 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
the appeal contending that the Tribunal has not taken into
consideration the parental consortium to claimants No.2
to 4 and filial consortium to claimant No.5 and not awarded
the compensation properly and they are also entitled for the
escalation charges of 10% under conventional heads, as per
the judgment of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Nanu Ram, reported in (2019) 1 SCC 262. He further
contended that, the claimants have produced all available
evidence and proved the accident that had taken place on
25.08.2014 at 10.45 p.m. and thus, they are entitled for
compensation.
11. Learned counsel for insurer Sri G.N.Raichur
would submit that the husband of claimant No.1 succumbed
to the injuries sustained by him in the accident that had
taken place on 25.08.2014. On 26.08.2014 itself, the
complaint was also lodged. However, the Canter lorry that
belonged to respondent No.1 was traced about 10 months
after the alleged incident i.e., during June 2015 and at that
time the MV Inspector who examined the lorry has found
- 13 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
some scratches on its left side. However, PW.3 has given
evidence that he did tinkering work for the damages that
had caused to the offending lorry and it was kept in his
mechanic shop for 3 days. This discrepancy itself
establishes that the lorry in question was not involved in the
accident. Furthermore, the lorry hit the husband of claimant
No.1 and thus, there cannot be any damages to it.
Furthermore, the vehicle in question was examined after a
long period i.e., on 27.06.2015, it was seized and on
29.06.2015, it was examined by the MV Inspector. There is
discrepancy in between the evidence of PW.3 and this MVI
report. He would further submit that, in the complaint,
Canter lorry number was not mentioned and it is specifically
stated that due to darkness, they could not trace the lorry
number. How this offending vehicle was traced after a long
gap of 10 months is not explained by the Investigating
Officer. The Investigating Officer who has filed charge sheet
has not conducted the initial investigation. The learned
counsel for insurer would further submit that even though
PW.2 is an eye witness, he had not seen the lorry number,
- 14 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
which caused the accident, which is admitted by him in his
complaint itself and also in his evidence. Furthermore, the
driver of lorry was not possessing driving licence as on the
date of accident. His licence was expired before the date of
accident and he renewed it only on 01.10.2015 i.e., one
year two months after the accident. The owner knowing
fully well that driver was not holding licence has handed
over the lorry to the driver and thus, the insurance
company is not liable to make good the loss i.e., it cannot
be directed to follow the 'pay and recovery' policy. Hence,
insurance company is to be exonerated from making
payment. Hence, merely because charge-sheet is filed
against driver of the alleged offending vehicle, the
involvement of offending vehicle in causing the accident is
not proved in accordance with law. Hence, prayed for
allowing the appeal.
12. Learned counsel for insurer would further submit
that, in respect of compensation is concerned, the accident
had taken place in the year 2014, but, the Tribunal has
- 15 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
taken the income of deceased at ₹10,000/- per month
without any admissible documents and thus, it ought to
have been taken at ₹7,500/- per month and imposing
interest at 9% per annum is on higher side. It should be
reduced to 6% per annum.
13. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending
vehicle Sri Girish S. Hiremath, would submit that he is not
liable to make payment, because the driver was holding the
licence, but it was expired and then he got it renewed.
Hence, the insurer is liable to make payment. Hence,
prayed for modification of the award to that extent.
14. From the above facts, the points that would arise
for consideration are as under:
i) Whether the insurer proves that the Canter
lorry bearing registration No.KA-16/A-2266
was not involved in the accident?
ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for
enhanced compensation?
- 16 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
iii) Whether the liability saddled on insurer
directing to 'pay and recover' by the
Tribunal is justifiable?
15. Our findings to the above points are in the
affirmative, negative and negative, respectively for the
following:
REASONS
16. The death of husband of claimant No.1 in the
accident that was occurred on 25.08.2014 at about
10.45 p.m. on Sivamogga-Channagiri road near
Hanchinasiddapur village Cross is not in dispute. The only
dispute is whether the offending vehicle, a goods Canter
lorry bearing registration No.KA-16/A-2266 has caused the
said accident or whether it is a 'hit and run' case and
unknown person had caused the accident.
17. The initial burden is on the claimants to prove
that the Canter lorry bearing registration No.KA-16/A-2266
is involved in the accident to claim compensation.
- 17 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
18. To substantiate these things, claimants rely upon
the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.4. PW.1 is the wife of
claimant No.1 and she has not seen the accident and thus
unable to say anything about the way in which accident had
taken place. Hence, her evidence is of least importance to
decide this point.
19. PW.2 is the person who has lodged complaint
immediately after the accident i.e., on 26.08.2014. Ex.P.1 is
the FIR; Ex.P.2 is the copy of complaint. The contents of
Exs.P.1 & P.2 reveal that on 25.08.2014, the deceased was
driving lorry bearing No.KA-14/A-2930 and they had
stopped the lorry on left side of the road as the engine
bending was cut near Themba and they have called
mechanic and were waiting for the mechanic; at about
10.45 p.m., one Canter came with rashness and negligence,
being driven by its driver and dashed against Hasanpeer
and Allabaksh when this complainant along with husband of
claimant No.1 and Allabaksh, the cleaner of the lorry were
talking on the left side of the road, and has not stopped the
- 18 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
vehicle and run away from the spot. Because of darkness,
he could not verify the number of the lorry.
20. The above averments in complaint clearly and
categorically establish that the complainant has not seen
the registration number of the Canter lorry and he does not
know who caused the accident. In this regard PW.2 in his
examination has deposed that, they have made efforts to
trace the lorry which caused the accident i.e., he chased the
lorry on a bike and tried to trace the lorry; but could not
trace it; at that time they were not aware about the
registration number of the lorry. Thus, PW.2 also had not
seen who caused the accident.
21. PW.3 is the mechanic working at Nallur,
Chennagiri Taluk and has stated in his affidavit evidence
that, on 26.08.2014, a 407 lorry bearing No.KA-16/A-2266
was brought to his shop by its owner Sreenivas and one
Yuvaraj of Itagi village, who are known to the witness and
he had seen crush damage on left side shape, its left side
body came out and there was dent on its top. When he
- 19 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
enquired, they told that on 26.08.2014, while coming from
Shivamogga, during night time after passing
Hanchinasiddapur village near Themba on Chennagiri
boundary, he has dashed the stationed Canter lorry;
afterwards, he has put tinkering and lappa on that lorry and
three days afterwards they came and took away the lorry.
The cross-examination of PW.3 reveals that he had not seen
the accident and he has done only tinkering to the lorry in
question. However, to substantiate that he did tinkering and
charged some amount for tinkering to the lorry owner or
driver, no receipt or bill is produced and there is no other
material evidence except the oral evidence of PW.3 to
substantiate this fact.
22. PW.4 is the Investigating Officer, who has filed
charge sheet against the driver and owner of the Canter
lorry bearing No.KA-16/A-2266. This charge sheet was filed
on 07.11.2015, i.e., one year three months after the
accident. In this regard, this PW.4 has given evidence that
he has received the case file from CPI-Ravi Nayak. After he
- 20 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
has taken charge of the Channagiri Circle Inspector Office
on 08.05.2015 and then he issued notice to PW.3 on
27.06.2015 and recorded his statement and then issued
notice to owner of the lorry bearing No.KA-16/A-2266 and
allowed to produce the lorry and he has produced it and
then he seized it under panchanama as per Ex.P.4 and on
the same day he has recorded the further statements of
PW.2 Rudresh and one Siddesh and then on 30.06.2015 he
has recorded the statement of some witnesses. On the
same day, he has received the MVI report from the MV
Inspector. On 20.09.2015 he recorded the statements of
some persons and based on it, he has filed charge sheet
against driver of the Canter lorry bearing No.KA-16/A-2266.
23. The cross-examination of PW.4, the Investigating
Officer reveals that, at the initial stage when complaint was
lodged, he was not in charge of that police station and he
has not conducted investigation at that time. He further
deposed that, generally in the case of present nature, they
would file charge-sheet within 3-4 months, but because his
- 21 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
earlier Investigating Officer has not filed charge-sheet, has
not completed the investigation, he completed the
investigation and filed charge sheet. He denied other
suggestions that this vehicle was not involved in the
accident, etc.
24. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.2 to
PW.4, it is crystal clear that PW.2 has not seen the vehicle
which caused the accident that had taken place to the
vehicle in question. Evidence of PW.3 is not supported by
any cogent documentary evidence. Only based on the
statement of PW.3, PW.4 has filed charge sheet against the
driver of lorry bearing No.KA-16/A-2266. There is an
inordinate delay in involving this lorry to the present case,
which appears to be doubtful. Furthermore, as pointed out
by learned counsel for the insurer, in the MVI report as per
Ex.P.7, it is stated that there is front left side fender
scratched, headlight cover damaged. But, he has not
mentioned about tinkering to the lorry, which is deposed by
- 22 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
PW.3 and thus, there is quite contradiction in between these
two.
25. The strict proof of accident beyond reasonable
doubt is not required in the case of present nature as it is a
summary proceeding. The claimants have to establish their
case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities as
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mathew
Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and another, reported
in (2023) SCC 510.
26. Under those circumstances, without making
proper enquiry, the Investigating Officer has involved the
driver of the vehicle as accused.
27. On behalf of respondents, the manager of
respondent No.2-insurance company is examined as RW.2,
who has stated in his affidavit evidence that, there is no FC
and thus, respondent No.1 has violated the policy terms
and conditions and he has stated about filing of charge
sheet by the Investigating Officer alleging offences under
- 23 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
Section 3 read with section 181 of M.V.Act, against accused
No.1, driver and under section 4 read with section 180
against accused No.2, owner of the lorry bearing
No.KA-16/A-2266. It is also stated in his affidavit evidence
at paragraph No.5 as follows:
"The husband of petitioner No.1
Mr.Hasanpeer came and dashed to our insured
vehicle, as such, respondent No.2 is not liable to
pay compensation to the petitioners."
28. On perusal of the above statement of RW.2 in his
affidavit evidence, it appears that, there is some admission
from his side regarding the accident. However, since from
inception, respondent-insurer has taken contention that the
vehicle in question is falsely implicated in this case, in the
objection statement and also while cross-examining PW.1 to
PW.4.
29. The above discussion reveals that mere filing of
charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer would not prove
the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident.
- 24 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
30. In Mathew Alexander case (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as paragraph No.13 as under:
In that view of the matter, it is for the
appellant herein to establish negligence on the
part of the driver of the tanker lorry in the
petition filed by him seeking compensation on
account of death of his son in the said accident.
Thus, the opinion in the final report would not
have a bearing on the claim petition for the
aforesaid reasons. This is because the appellant
herein is seeking compensation for the death of
his son in the accident which occurred on
account of the negligence on the part of the
driver of the tanker lorry, causing the accident
on the said date. It is further observed that in
the claim petitions filed by the dependents, in
respect of the other passengers in the car who
died in the accident, they have to similarly
establish the negligence in accordance with law.
31. Thus, the opinion in the final report would not
have a bearing on the claim petition. The claimants have to
establish their case without the influence of finding on the
criminal case lodged against the driver of the alleged
offending vehicle.
32. By placing reliance on the principles noted in the
aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and for the
- 25 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the
claimants failed to establish involvement of offending
Canter lorry bearing registration No.KA-16/A-2266 in
causing the accident to the deceased Hasanpeer. Under
those circumstances, granting compensation to claimants'
payable by the owner/insurer of the offending vehicle does
not arise. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal filed by the insurer, in MFA
No.103905/2019 and the appeal filed by the
owner of the offending Canter lorry, in MFA
No.100827/2020 are allowed.
ii) Appeal filed by the claimants in MFA
No.103477/2019 is dismissed.
iii) The judgment and award dated
14.08.2019, passed in MVC No.465/2016, by
the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT, Ranebennur, is set aside by
- 26 -
C/W MFA No.103477/2019,
rejecting the claim petition filed by the
claimants.
iv) The amount in deposit, if any made
by the insurer and owner of offending Canter
lorry shall be refunded to them, on proper
identification.
v) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
MRK
CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 28
