Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Guranna S/O Bhimaraya Swati And Anr on 18 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1693
MFA No. 200242 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200242 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
RELIANCE GNE. INS. CO. LTD.,
S.V. PATEL CHOWK, ASIAN PLAZA COMPLEX,
KALABURAGI,
(NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, HUBLI).
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GURANNA S/O BHIMARAYA SWATI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT,
R/O H. NO. 4/4/11, KELAGERI ROAD,
Digitally signed CHITTAPUR, TQ. CHITTAPUR,
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA DIST. KALABURAGI-585 101.
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. AMBARISH S/O BASAWARAJ BANKUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF BAJAJ PULSAR
MOTORCYLE NO.KA-50/U-5091, R/O NO.31,
HESARAGATTA MAIN ROAD, LAKSHIMPURA,
SRS FACTORY, SOMASHETTY HALLI,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE NORTH-560 097.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 D/W V/O DTD 18.03.2025)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1693
MFA No. 200242 of 2020
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2019
IN MVC NO.1223/2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT AT KALABURGI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
As per the memo filed by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, notice to
respondent No.2 is dispensed with at their own risk.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for
the respondent No.1-petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the Insurance Company is challenging the
impugned judgment and award in MVC No.1223/2015 by
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1693
the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kalaburagi, on
the ground that-
a) there is a delay of 6 days in filing the
complaint;
b) that the respondent No.1, who was rider of
motorcycle bearing No.KA-50/U-5091 was not having a
valid driving licence at the time of the accident.
3. The petitioner-Guranna was travelling in a TATA
Sumo on 24.06.2015 and since said vehicle had a
mechanical fault, he called his brother to bring a bike. One
Basavaraj came with a bike and while the petitioner and
his brother were standing by the side of the road, the
respondent-Ambarish came on the motorcycle and dashed
to the petitioner and his brother resulting in the petitioner
sustaining fractures like fracture of right tibia, fracture of
right knee and head injury. He claimed compensation from
the owner and insurer of the motorcycle. Petitioner
contended that he was a government servant earning
Rs.15,000/- per month and as such, he is entitled for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1693
compensation from the respondents. The complaint was
filed after 6 days by the brother of the petitioner stating
that since he was engaged in treatment of the petitioner,
he could not come and file any complaint to the
jurisdictional police. After the FIR was registered by the
police, investigation was conducted and charge-sheet has
been filed against the rider of the motorcycle. The said
charge-sheet does not disclose any offence under Section
3 read with 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, regarding non-
possession of the driving licence.
4. The respondent-Insurance Company resisted
the petition contending that there is collusion between the
owner of the motorcycle and the petitioner. Inter alia it is
contended that there is compensation claimed is highly
exorbitant, imaginary, etc.
5. After framing of the appropriate issues and
recording of the evidence, the Tribunal held that there is
nothing to show that there was collusion between the
parties and the delay in filing the complaint is explained. It
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1693
also held that there is nothing on record to show that the
rider of the motorcycle was not having any driving licence.
Hence, it determined the compensation of Rs.1,87,300/-
and allowed the petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the delay
of 6 days in filing the complaint has not been properly
considered by the Tribunal and it failed to draw inferences
about such delay. She submits that though the Insurance
Company had taken up the contention that the rider was
not having a valid driving licence, the Tribunal erroneously
held that such contention has not been proved and
therefore, there is need for indulgence by this Court.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 has defended the impugned judgment by
drawing attention of this Court at paragraph No.15 of the
impugned judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1693
8. It is pertinent to note that the delay of 6 days
in filing the complaint appears to have not been pressed
before the Tribunal. Evidently the petitioner had suffered
injuries like fracture and he was unable to move and as
such, the contention of the complainant in the complaint
that he was engaged in the treatment of the petitioner has
to be upheld. Such contention mentioned in the complaint
has not been rebutted by the appellant-Insurance
Company by letting in any evidence. No other
circumstances are available, which would show that the
motorcycle has been falsely implicated in the accident.
Absolutely there is no other reasons or circumstances,
which would give impetus to the false implication of the
motorcycle.
9. So far as the driving licence of the rider is
concerned, the charge-sheet does not mentioned anything
about non-possession of the valid driving licence. This
aspect has been considered elaborately by the Tribunal at
paragraph No.15 of the impugned judgment. It had
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1693
noticed that, the Insurance Company has not let in any
evidence, which would rebut the contents of the charge-
sheet. It also notices that the appellant-Insurance
Company had not called upon the insured to furnish the
driving licence of the rider. In the absence of any such
effort on the part of the appellant-Insurance Company
herein, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the
contention of absence of a valid driving licence has not
been proved.
10. In view of the above reasons, the appeal is
bereft of any merits. Consequently, the appeal is
dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SDU
CT: AK
