Karnataka High Court

The Manager vs Md Mansoor And Ors on 23 June, 2025

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                                -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309
                                                      MFA No. 203911 of 2023
                                                  C/W MFA No. 203504 of 2023

                    HC-KAR



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                       KALABURAGI BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                               BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

                          MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.203911 OF 2023 (MV-D)
                                                C/W
                             MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.203504 OF 2023

                   IN M.F.A.NO.203911 OF 2023

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   MD. MANSOOR
                        S/O SHAIK CHAND SAB,
                        AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
                        OCC: LABOUR,

                   2.   KHAIRUNNISSA BEGUM
                        W/O MD. MANSOOR,
                        AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
                        OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed
by RAMESH               BOTH ARE R/O: NOORKHAN TALEEM,
MATHAPATI               TQ AND DIST: BIDAR - 585 402.
Location: HIGH                                                       ...APPELLANTS
COURT OF           (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
                   AND:

                   1.   KARAN S/O SURESH SHINDE,
                        AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
                        R/O: H NO.149, GADAWANTHI,
                        TQ: HUMNABAD,
                        DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
                        (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE HERO SPLENDOR
                        PLUS BEARING REGISTERED NO.KA.39/ S. 7479)
                              -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309
                                   MFA No. 203911 of 2023
                               C/W MFA No. 203504 of 2023

 HC-KAR



2.   THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM,
     M/S GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
     BRANCH OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR KALABURAGI,
     SQUARE DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI - 580 021.
     BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

3.   HEMANTH JADAV S/O DATTAJI JADAV,
     AGED: 55 YEARS,
     OCC: RETIRED ARMY EMPLOYEE,
     R/O: LAXMI NAGAR, BALEKUDRI KHB COLONY,
     BELGAUM - 590 002.
     (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE HERO HONDA SPLENDOR
     BEARING NO. KA49/ H.9381.)
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ENHANCE THE AWARD
AMOUNT BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 17.06.2023 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM AND ADDL. MACT., BIDAR IN MVC NO. 385/2022, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


IN M.F.A.NO.203504 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

     THE MANAGER,
     The CHOLAMANDALAM
     M/S GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
     BRANCH OFFICE, 1st FLOOR, KALABURAGI,
     SQUARE DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI.

                                                ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
                             -3-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309
                                      MFA No. 203911 of 2023
                                  C/W MFA No. 203504 of 2023

 HC-KAR



AND:

1.   MD. MANSOOR
     S/O SHAIK CHAND SAB,
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
     OCC: LABOUR,

2.   KHAIRUNNISSA BEGUM
     S/O SHAIK CHAND SAB,
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

     BOTH ARE R/O: NOORKHAN TALEEM,
     TQ AND DIST: BIDAR - 585 402.

3.   KARAN S/O SURESH SHINDE,
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: H NO.149, GADAWANTHI,
     TQ: HUMNABAD,
     DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.

4.   HEMANTH JADAV S/O DATTAJI JADAV,
     AGED: MAJOR,
     OCC: RETIRED ARMY EMPLOYEE,
     R/O: LAXMI NAGAR, BALEKUDRI KHB COLONY,
     BELGAUM - 590 002.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND 2;
    SRI SANTOSH KUMAR B. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
    NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
17.06.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE    AND   CJM   AND    ADDL.   MACT,  AT   BIDAR   IN
M.V.C.NO.385/2022, AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO
DISCHARGE ITS LIABILITY TO PAY THE COMPENSATION AND PLEASE
TO REDUCE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
                                 -4-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309
                                        MFA No. 203911 of 2023
                                    C/W MFA No. 203504 of 2023

 HC-KAR



                          ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard and with consent of both parties, matter is taken

up for final disposal.

2. Challenging judgment and award dated 17.06.2023

passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Addl. MACT, at

Bidar in M.V.C.no.385/2022, these appeals are filed.

3. MFA no.203504/2023 is filed by insurer being

aggrieved by finding of tribunal on liability and quantum only

insofar as award of interest of 9% p.a. is concerned, while

claimants have filed MFA no.203911/2023 challenging

apportionment of negligence.

4. Sri Manjunath Mallayya Shetty, learned counsel for

insurer, submits, as per claimant, on 19.01.2022, when

Md.Ruman was riding motorcycle bearing no.KA-49/H-9381,

near BSNL office, Jalsangvi, rider of another motorcycle bearing

no.KA-39/S-7479, rode it in rash and negligent manner and

dashed against Md.Ruman's motorcycle, causing accident. In

said accident, Md.Ruman sustained fatal injuries and died on

spot. Alleging loss of dependency, his parents filed MVC

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309

HC-KAR

no.385/2022 against owner and insurer of offending

motorcycle.

5. On contest wherein, insurer disputed claim petition

averments, alleged violation of policy conditions and urged

contributory negligence against Md.Ruman, tribunal framed

issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 examined himself

as PW-1 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-6. Insurer examined

its official as RW-1, but led no documentary evidence.

6. On consideration, tribunal answered issues no.1 and

3 in affirmative, issues no.2, 4 and 5 partly in affirmative and

issue no.6 by allowing claim petition. Tribunal held claimants

entitled for net compensation of Rs.6,81,200/- with 9% interest

per annum.

7. It was submitted, while passing impugned award,

tribunal failed to note that Md.Ruman - victim himself did not

have valid driving license. Moreover, he was riding motorcycle

with two pillion riders. Therefore, apportionment of contributory

negligence against him would have to be scaled up. At same

time, rider of insured motorcycle also did not have any driving

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309

HC-KAR

license. Therefore, tribunal was not justified in holding insurer

liable. It was alternatively submitted, award of interest at 9%

was higher and sought reduction.

8. On other hand, Sri Basavaraj R Math, learned

counsel for claimants, opposed insurer's appeal and pressed

claimant's appeal against apportionment of negligence. It was

submitted, tribunal was not justified in holding deceased

negligent to extent of 60% and denying compensation to said

extent. It was submitted, accident was head on collision in

middle of road between two motorcycles. Therefore, at worst,

apportionment should have been 50% each. It was further

submitted, since it was case of contributory negligence by

riders of both motorcycles, insurer could not escape liability in

case of third party and would at best confine itself to seeking

for an order of pay and recover relying on judgments of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in cases of Shamanna and Another v. The

Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors1

and Smt.M.Ananthi and Ors. v. P. Venkatesan and

Others2.

(2018) 9 SCC 650

In Civil Appeal no.1175 of 2025

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309

HC-KAR

9. Heard counsel and perused impugned judgment and

award.

10. From above, since claimants and insurer are

challenging findings of tribunal on liability and award of higher

rate of interest, points that would arise for consideration are:

"i) Whether finding of tribunal on liability requires modification?

ii) Whether tribunal was justified in awarding 9% interest per annum?"

Point no.1:

11. Insofar as negligence, claimants relied on police

investigation records which chargesheeted riders of both

motorcycles for rash and negligent riding and causing accident.

Admittedly, accident was head on collision wherein both riders

were with two pillion riders each. Circumstances and material

against both riders being equal, tribunal would not be justified

in holding deceased negligent to extent of 60%. It has to be

held equally at 50%.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309

HC-KAR

12. Insofar as liability, appellant-insurer herein is

insurer of other motorcycle and deceased would be third party

vis-à-vis contract of insurance in question. Therefore, it would

require to be held liable to extent of 50% as per ratio of

apportionment of negligence. However, as its insured violated

conditions of policy by permitting rider without driving licence

to ride insured vehicle, it would be required to pay

compensation to claimants in first instance and thereafter,

recover same from insured. Point no.1 is answered partly in

affirmative as above.

Point no.2:

13. This Court in case of Shriram General Insurance

Company Limited, Rajasthan vs. Smt.Laxmi and others3,

held that rate of interest in a motor accident claims cannot be

more than 6% in view of Section 30 of Code of Civil Procedure.

Hence, insurer would be liable to pay interest at 6% per annum

from date of claim petition till date of payment.

2018 (4) AKR 808

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3309

HC-KAR

14. Point no.2 is thus answered in negative.

Consequently, following:

ORDER Both claimants' and insurer's appeals are allowed in part.

Judgment and award dated 17.06.2023 passed by Principal

Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Additional MACT, Bidar, in MVC

no.385/2022 is modified, claimants are held entitled for 50% of

total compensation of Rs.17,03,000/- i.e., Rs.8,51,500/- with

interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till

deposit. Insurer is held liable to pay same to claimants in first

instance and thereafter, recover it from insured without need

for separate proceedings.