Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Kumari Amrutha on 21 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12009
MFA No. 7952 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7952 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
FIRST FLOOR, MYSURU TRACK CENTER,
OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND, MYSORE,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING, NO. 28,
M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KUMARI AMRUTHA,
D/O LATE MAHADEVA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT MANCHAPURA, RAMAPURA HOBLI,
Digitally KOLLEGALA TALUK - 16.
signed by
SUVARNA T 2. C.N. KRISHNA,
Location: S/O LATE T.M. NAGARAJU,
HIGH NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
COURT OF NO. 299, 20TH CROSS,
KARNATAKA RAILWAY LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR, MYSURU - 01.
3. AJMAL PASHA,
S/O MOHAMMED USMAN,
MAJOR R/AT D.NO. 3093/1,
CONVENT ROAD, LAKSHKAR MOHALLA,
MYSURU - 01.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. P.C. SUNITHA FOR, ADVOCATE R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 18.07.2023, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3
DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12009
MFA No. 7952 of 2016
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.27/12 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,
KOLLEGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.66,896/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.27/2012 dated
23.06.2016 by the Senior Civil Jude and J.M.F.C., Kollegal, the
Insurance Company is before this Court.
2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of
an amount of Rs.6,20,000/- for the injuries sustained by the
claimant in the road traffic accident. It is the case of the
claimant that on 22.05.2008 at about 12.15 p.m., the
petitioner along with her sister and others were proceeding
towards Ramapura Government Hospital by walk on the left
side of the road for getting administration of polio drops to the
minor child, at that time, Mahindra Pickup vehicle bearing
Registration No.KA-22-M-6581 driven by its driver came from
opposite direction and dashed to the petitioner and she had
sustained injuries. Issue No.1 with regard to whether the
claimant has proved that she has sustained injuries in the
NC: 2025:KHC:12009
motor vehicle accident as she was hit by Mahindra Pickup
vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-22-M-6581. It is the case of the
Insurance Company that initially when eye witness has given a
report that the vehicle Number is KA-10-8991. After one month
and eight days, the police have changed this number to KA-22-
M-6581. Basing on this, the Insurance Company contended
that the vehicle is not involved in the accident and as the first
vehicle was not having the insurance policy, this vehicle is
implicated in the accident to get compensation as this vehicle is
insured by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has negatived
the said contention of the Insurance Company observing that
the police after full fledged investigation, have filed the charge
sheet against the driver of KA-22-M-6581. The Insurance
Company has not questioned the said charge sheet. As such,
the Tribunal has held that the said vehicle is involved and the
accident has happened because of the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the said vehicle and granted
compensation of an amount of Rs.66,896/-.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
Insurance Company has reiterated the grounds that are taken
before the Tribunal and submits that the particular vehicle i.e.,
NC: 2025:KHC:12009
KA-22-M-6581 is not involved in the accident and the question
of Insurance Company challenging the charge sheet will not
arise and there is no necessity for the Insurance Company to
question the charge sheet. It is submitted that when the
application is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1989, the burden lies on the claimant to prove the accident and
the involvement of the vehicle. It is submitted that in this case,
the claimant has failed to prove that the particular vehicle i.e.,
KA-22-M-6581 is involved in the accident. As such, the order
requires to be interfered by this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
claimant submits that the police have conducted a full fledged
investigation and thereafter, they have come to the conclusion
that the vehicle involved is KA-22-M-6581 and they have also
filed a charge sheet. The evidence by filing charge sheet and
the police records established before the Tribunal that the said
vehicle is involved. The same is denied by the Insurance
Company. They have to adduce evidence and in this case, no
such evidence is adduced by them except examining the Officer
of the Insurance Company. It is submitted that the Tribunal
had rightly considered and passed an order and no interference
NC: 2025:KHC:12009
is called for with the well considered order passed by the
Tribunal.
5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the material on record. There is no dispute about the
fact that PW.2-eye witness had initially given the vehicle
number i.e., KA-10-8991. Thereafter, the police have
registered the complaint and they have conducted an
investigation. In the investigation, they have found that the
vehicle that is involved is not the one which PW.2 has
mentioned, but it is KA-22-M-6581 and after full fledged
enquiry, they have filed charge sheet. Now, it is the case of
Insurance Company that the vehicle is falsely implicated in this
case and it is not at all involved. If that is the stand of the
Insurance Company, they have to prove the same by adducing
cogent evidence, except relying on the initial FIR, they have not
adduced any other evidence and they have failed to prove the
same. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal had rightly held
that the vehicle involved is KA-22-M-6581 and the Insurance
Company is liable to pay the compensation. This Court finds no
reason interfere with the well considered order passed by the
Tribunal. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:12009
ORDER
i) The Appeal is dismissed.
ii) The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the
Tribunal, forthwith.
iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of
the order passed by this Court forthwith without
any delay.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
KA
CT: BHK
