Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Kamalabai And Ors on 16 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3082
MFA No. 200026 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200026 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, HERALAGI BUILDING,
BEHIND SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE,
VIJAYAPURA.
(NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, BILGUNDI COMPLEX,
STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI)
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KAMALABAI
Digitally signed
by RAMESH W/O SHIVANAGOUDA MALIPTAIL,
MATHAPATI AGE: 54 YEARS,
Location: HIGH OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. GIRIMALLAPPAGOUDA
S/O SHIVANAGOUDA MALIPATIL,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
3. SIDDANAGOUDA
S/O SHIVANAGOUDA MALIPATIL,
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: DIPLOMA STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O. MALLI,
TQ: JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3082
MFA No. 200026 of 2021
HC-KAR
4. THE SECRETARY,
APMC, SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.02.2020 IN
M.V.C.NO.1668/2016 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL NO.IV AT VIJAYAPURA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 24.02.2020
passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.IV,
Vijayapura, (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.1668/2016, this
appeal is filed.
2. Smt.Preetipatil Melkundi, leaned counsel for
appellant submitted that appeal was by Insurer challenging
award passed by Tribunal, fastening liability on Insurer due to
false implication of insured vehicle, even though it was not
offending vehicle in accident. It was submitted that on
16.10.2015 at about 18.30 hours when deceased was riding his
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3082
HC-KAR
motorcycle bearing Reg.no.KA-17/S-927 on Yankanchi Bypass
in Sindagi, on Vijayapura-Kalaburagi road, jeep bearing
Reg.no.KA-28/N-3073 (insured with appellant) came from
Kalaburagi side in high speed and dashed against motorcycle,
causing accident and resulting in death of deceased -
Ninganagouda. It was submitted that insured vehicle namely
jeep was parked by side of road and was not in motion at time
of accident. A false narrative was given that accident was
caused by jeep, whereas true fact was that accident was
caused by an unknown tipper, since it could not be traced,
claimants had falsely implicated insured vehicle for purpose of
claim. It was submitted, PW-2, examined as eyewitness by
claimants was not cited as a witness in criminal prosecution and
Motor Vehicle Inspector's report clearly indicated damages
sustained by jeep on its right side and right rear side, which is
supported by charge sheet filed by police after investigation
that accident occurred when a tipper dashed against motorcycle
of deceased causing his death and thereafter, it brushed
against right side of insured jeep. Therefore, claim petition filed
under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act against insured jeep
would not sustain and sought for allowing appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3082
HC-KAR
3. On other hand, Sri Sanganabasava B Patil, learned
counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 sought to oppose petition. It
was submitted that accident had occurred in manner asserted
by claimants in claim petition. Though, accident was caused by
jeep belonging to APMC and insured with appellant, APMC had
sought to escape its liability by falsely implicating unknown
tipper. It was submitted that accident was witnessed by several
persons, including PW-2 - eyewitness. Both in deposition of
PW-2 and pleadings it was asserted that accident was caused
by jeep when deceased attempted to cross Kalaburgi -
Vijayapura Road at a cross intersection. Jeep's driver failed to
exercise due caution, dashing against motorcycle. Further, RW-
1, a witness examined by insurer, admitted that deceased's
body was lying near right front wheel of jeep (insured vehicle),
which had run over deceased's head. This would clearly indicate
that accident/death was attributable to driver of jeep. In view
of above admission, Insurance Company was rightly held liable.
Therefore, no interference with judgment and award was
warranted.
4. Heard leaned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award and record.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3082
HC-KAR
5. From above and since, insurer is challenging award
on ground of false implication of insured vehicle for purpose of
claim, point that would arise for consideration is:
"Whether fastening of entire liability on insurer of
jeep is justified?
6. Answer to above is in affirmative for following
reasons.
7. It is settled legal principal that in motor vehicle
accident claims, police investigation records would be prima
facie material to establish occurrence of accident and
negligence and would not be conclusive. Both parties may lead
evidence to clarify or contradict such material. In instant case,
perusal of claim petition filed itself would indicate that
claimants had from very initial stage maintained clear stand
about accident having been caused by driver of insured jeep.
They also specifically asserted that insurer/owner of jeep had to
escape liability by creating a story of accident caused by tipper.
8. To substantiate same, claimants relied on
deposition by claimant no.1, eye witness as PW-2 and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3082
HC-KAR
complainant as PW-3. PW-1 is admittedly not an eyewitness.
PW-1, deposed about occurrence of accident, involvement of
insured vehicle, death of her son and loss of dependency. PW-2
in his deposition stated that at time of accident, he was sitting
infront of dhaba near Yankanchi bypass, when he saw deceased
riding motorcycle had almost crossed Vijayapura - Kalaburagi
Road at Yankanchi bypass cross, when insured jeep, driven in
high speed and rash and negligent manner from Kalaburagi
side, dashed against motorcycle. Though, cross-examination of
said witness, is with intention to establish that witness had
come to Court at instance of claimants only to help them
without witnessing accident, suggestions made about not
informing police about manner of accident and about witness
not being present at spot at time of accident are denied. PW-
3/complainant, is brother of deceased, who admitted that he
did not witness accident.
9. On other hand, official of insurer is examined as
RW-1. In his cross examination, it is elicited that body of
deceased was lying infront of jeep and that right wheel of jeep
had run over head of deceased. While passing impugned
judgment and award, Tribunal has not only taken note of entire
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3082
HC-KAR
police investigation record, but it also referred to oral evidence.
For purposes of Section 163-A of MV Act, involvement of
insured vehicle in accident would suffice. Therefore, above
material would support conclusion of Tribunal for fastening
liability on insurer. Impugned award being based on material
and passed by assigning proper reasons, I do not find any error
or perversity warranting interference. Hence, no ground to
admit. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
a) Appeal is dismissed.
b) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to
Tribunal for payment. Balance amount, if any, be
deposited within a period of six weeks.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SN,NJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34/Ct;Vk
