Karnataka High Court
The Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Bhagyamma on 3 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
MFA No. 4369 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4369 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, S.M. TOWERS, 11TH MAIN ROAD,
3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 011.
ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO.28,
CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
NOW REP. BY MANAGER LEGAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by NANDINI R
Location: 1. BHAGYAMMA,
HIGH COURT
OF W/O. NANJAPPACHARI,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
2. NANJAPPACHARI,
S/O. LATE PUTTASWAMICHARI,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/O SIGAVALU VILLAGE,
SALIGRAMA HOBLI, K.R NAGARA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-575 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
MFA No. 4369 of 2018
HC-KAR
3. CHANNAKESHAVAMURTHY. M.T,
S/O. THIMMEGOWDA. V,
R/O. VAAHIKA CONNECT,
NO.3, MARUTHI NAGAR,
GARDEN VILLAGE, NAGARBHAVI
MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 072.
4. SYED ALEEM
S/O. SYED ALI,
5TH BLOCK, BELLUR,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-574 125.
5. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.1119/B, KAMBLI BUILDING,
M.C. ROAD, ASHOKA NAGAR,
MANDYA-571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-5;
SRI MUSHTHAQ AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
NOTICE TO R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O
DATED 15.11.2022;
R-1 AND R-2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.8408/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SCJ &
XXXII ACMM MEMBER, MACT-3, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.26,20,848
WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
30.08.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
MFA No. 4369 of 2018
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in
MVC.No.8408/2016, dated 15.03.2018, by the learned VII
Additional SCJ & XXXII ACMM & Member, MACT-3,
Bengaluru, the appellant- Insurance Company [respondent
No.2 before the Tribunal] has approached this Court in
appeal.
2. The parties would be referred to as per their
ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. The factual matrix that is relevant is as below:
(a) On 13.08.2016, at about 8.30 p.m., the
deceased-S.N.Santhosh was traveling as a paid passenger
in Winger passenger vehicle bearing No.KA-41-A-9933
(Winger) along with other passengers from Bengaluru to
Hassan. Near Herur village, on NH-75 bypass road,
Kunigal Taluk, a lorry bearing No.KA-13-A-7857 (Canter)
was parked in the middle of the road without any
indicators. The driver of the Winger drove it in negligent
manner, lost control and dashed to the rear side of the
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
HC-KAR
parked Canter, resulting in death of the said S.N.Santhosh
and four others and injuries to several other inmates.
(b) At the time of the accident, the deceased was
aged about 28 years, had acquired MBA degree and was
employed at Veer-O-Metals Private Limited, as a Junior
Engineer earning `30,000/- per month.
(c) The petitioners are the parents of the deceased
S.N.Santhosh and they having lost their son, who was
bread earner of the family, claimed compensation from the
owners and insurers of the Winger and Canter vehicles.
(d) The concerned Police, after investigation found
negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles
and filed the charge sheet against them.
(e) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal
are the owner and insurer of the Winger and respondent
Nos.3 and 4 are the owner and insurer of the Canter
respectively.
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
HC-KAR
4. The said petition was opposed by respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 4 by filing objections.
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the
driver of the Winger was slow and cautious but the Canter
was parked without any indications and in dangerous
manner at the middle of the road and therefore,
negligence cannot be attributed to the driver of the Winger
vehicle. They also termed the compensation claimed as
highly exorbitant and imaginary. Inter-alia, respondent
No.1 stated that the vehicle was insured with respondent
No.2 and the driver had valid driving licence and as such,
the liability, if any, has to be fastened on respondent No.2.
6. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company
(appellant herein) contended that though the policy of
insurance was in force, the driver of the Winger vehicle
had violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the
vehicle had no valid permit. The driver had allowed the
passengers more than the seating capacity permitted and
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
HC-KAR
therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any
compensation.
7. Respondent No.4 - the insurer of the Canter
also took up similar contentions to deny its liability. It
stated that the driver of the Canter had parked the vehicle
by the side of the road and he had not breached the terms
and conditions of the policy and as such, its liability be
absolved. Inter-alia, it denied any negligence on the part
of the Canter driver.
8. On the basis of the above contentions, the
Tribunal framed appropriate issues. Petitioner No.1 was
examined as PW.1 and one witness was examined as
PW.2. Exs.P1 to P23 were marked. On behalf of the
respondents, four witnesses were examined as RWs.1 to 4
and Exs.R1 to R11 were marked.
9. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal held
that respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable
to pay the compensation of `26,20,848/-, along with
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
HC-KAR
interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of the
petition till the date of deposit and attributed negligence of
50% on each of the tortfeasors and fastened the liability
on both the Insurance Companies, accordingly.
10. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2-
Insurance Company is before this Court in appeal.
11. The arguments by Sri. Ashok N. Patil, learned
counsel for the appellant, Sri. Mushthaq Ahmed, learned
counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri. Shankar Reddy,
learned counsel for respondent No.5 were heard. Notice to
respondent No.3 was dispensed with and respondent
Nos.1 and 2 did not appear despite service of notice.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the driver
of the Winger was negligent to the extent of 50%. He
contends that FIR discloses that the driver of the Canter
had parked the same on the left side but its indicators
were covered with a tarpaulin and no other blinkers were
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
HC-KAR
kept to caution the vehicles coming from behind. He
contends that the Canter being a larger vehicle, its driver
should have been more cautious while parking the same.
He submits that the driver of the Winger could not have
spotted the parked vehicle when there were vehicles
coming from opposite side with headlights on. He places
reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court
rendered in the cases of JUMANI BEGUM VS. RAM
NARARYAN AND OTHERS1, SUSHMA VS. NITHIN
GANAPATHI RANGOLE AND OTHERS2 and KUMARI
JYOTHI AND OTHERS VS. MOHD. USMAN ALI AND
OTHERS3 to contend that the Tribunal had erred in
fastening 50% liability on the appellant. He also contends
that the Tribunal failed to consider the professional tax to
be deducted from the income of the deceased while
calculating the compensation amount.
SLP(C).No.29254/2019 DD 11.12.2019
SLP(C).No.21172/2021 DD 19.09.2024
ILR 2002 KAR 893
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
HC-KAR
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.4 and 5 submit that the FIR and the
testimony of RWs.3 and 4 are of pivotal importance in the
case. The evidence on record reveal that the Winger had
abruptly come on the left side of the road without there
being any reason. It is submitted that it is a four lane
highway and the accident had occurred on the extreme left
side of the two lanes leading towards Hassan. The other
two lanes on the right side beyond the median was used
by the vehicles coming from Hassan side and as such,
blinding due to the headlights cannot be a cause. Hence,
he contends that no interference is needed in the
impugned judgment.
14. A careful perusal of the evidence on record
reveal the following aspects:
(a) The FIR at Ex.P1 shows that a bystander saw
the accident from a distance of 200 meters and he lodged
the complaint to the Police. It was stated in the FIR that
the Canter vehicle was parked without any indicator lights,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
HC-KAR
the rear door was open and tarpaulin was covered to the
body of the lorry. His observation is categorical in saying
that there were no indicators or tail lamps that could be
seen by the vehicles coming from behind.
(b) The FIR is also clear in saying that when
informant was in the hotel, he heard the sound of bursting
of the tyre and thereafter, he heard the sound of collision
of two vehicles. He rushed to the spot and found that a
maxi cab had dashed to the rear of the canter and with
the help of the villagers, he extricated the inmates. There
were about 14-15 inmates and four of them had died at
the spot and about 09-10 inmates were injured. All the
injured were shifted to Kunigal Hospital in an ambulance.
He was categorically saying that the negligence was by the
driver of both the vehicles.
(c) The spot sketch produced at Ex.P4 show that a
tyre mark of the length of 68 feet is found diagonally from
the right lane to the left lane of the road and the total
width of the road is 24 feet. The accident had taken place
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
HC-KAR
at bridge. The four lane highway is divided by a median,
which has bushes on the median.
(d) The Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report (MVI
Report) at Ex.P5 shows that there was extensive damage
to the TATA Winger and one of the damage is that the rear
right side tyre is deflated and the wheel disk was
damaged.
(e) The charge sheet at Ex.P8 indicates that the
drivers of both the vehicles to be negligent.
(f) The cross-examination of RW.2-Santhosh shows
that he was the driver of the TATA Winger and according
to him, there was a bursting of his vehicle's rear right tyre
and as a result, he lost control and dashed to the rear of
the canter. In the cross-examination, though it is
suggested that he was in high speed, which he has denied,
there is no suggestion that there was no such tyre burst.
RW.3 is not an eyewitness to the accident but he was
owner of the TATA Winger who has supported the
testimony of RW.2.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
HC-KAR
(g) RW.4-Naushad happens to be the driver of the
Canter Lorry and he states that he had parked his lorry on
the left side, on the mud road since the right side wheel
was punctured. He states that he had put on the parking
lights. In the cross-examination, he denied that there were
no indicators for having parked on the road.
The above evidence on record would show that the
reason for the TATA Winger to swerve to the left side
abruptly, with a tyre mark of 68 feet as noted in the
sketch was due to the bursting of the tyre. Had there no
bursting of the tyre, the vehicle would have easily
bypassed the parked lorry. Similarly, if the Canter was
parked on the mud road, after the bridge, the collision
between the vehicles could have been averted. The
testimony of the RW.4 that he had put on the indicators
and the tail lamps appears to be an afterthought since the
FIR lodged by an independent person, who had seen the
Canter prior to the accident and after the accident
categorically states that there were no indicators or the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
HC-KAR
tail lamps. The FIR having come on record immediately
after the accident, has the advantage of spontaneity.
15. In view of the above material on record, it is
evident that if the driver of the TATA Winger had taken
care, the bursting of the tyre would have been averted. It
is not known what was the reason for such mechanical
failure of bursting of the tyre. Be that as it may, if the
canter lorry had not broken down and had parked on the
left side of the bridge, the accident would not have
happened. It appears to be a freak accident, the cause of
which is unfathomable. Under these circumstances, this
Court finds that it is difficult to attribute higher negligence
on the part of the driver of the lorry and lesser negligence
of the part of the driver of the Winger. The sketch of the
spot of the accident relied by the petitioners as well as the
RW.4 plays a vital role in ascertaining the manner in which
the accident occurred than the testimony of the
RWs.2 and 4.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
HC-KAR
16. The Tribunal though discussed the evidence on
record elaborately in paragraph Nos.21 to 23, has not
recorded the reasons why it is attributing 50% negligence
to each of the torsfeasors. Though it has not spelt out the
same, it has reflected the same in the operative portion of
the judgment by apportioning the liability equally on both
the tortfeasors.
17. In view of the above, this Court finds that the
negligence on the part of the two tortfeasors as concluded
by the Tribunal at 50% each cannot be interfered with.
Though the Winger is a smaller vehicle, the degree of
precaution that was to be taken by its driver was on the
higher side since he could have controlled the vehicle had
he driven at slower speed when there was a tyre burst.
Thus, by balancing the negligence on the part of the larger
vehicle as against the smaller vehicle and the degree of
precaution which should have been taken by the driver of
the smaller vehicle, this Court finds that the negligence of
50% fastened upon the winger insured with the appellant
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
HC-KAR
is proper and correct. No interference is required in this
regard.
18. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
JUMANI BEGUM (referred supra) cannot be made
applicable to the case on hand since the vehicle which
dashed against the parked lorry was a motorcycle and the
view of the Tribunal that the rider could have seen the
parked truck is held to be a conjecture.
19. The judgment in the case of SUSHMA (referred
supra), the Apex Court had considered the contributory
negligence on the part of the car driver, who had rammed
into the rear of an abandoned lorry at the middle of the
road. It was held that there was no contributory
negligence on the part of the car driver. Obviously, the
said decision is distinguishable on the facts of the present
case.
20. The judgment in the case of KUMARI JYOTHI
(referred supra), a motorcyclist had collided with a parked
lorry from behind, for which, no indicators for such parking
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
HC-KAR
were placed. Obviously there was no tyre burst and as
such distinguishable.
21. In view of the above, no interference is needed
regarding the 50% negligence attributed to the insured of
the appellant.
22. Sofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that the professional tax from
the income of the deceased is not deducted, the Tribunal
has considered the same in paragraph No.29 of the
judgment and therefore, the same is to be rejected.
23. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
also assailed the rate of interest of 8% awarded by the
Tribunal. This Court do not find any merit in the same by
noticing that the Tribunal did not award any amount under
the head of 'loss of love and affection', though it considers
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V/S PRANAY SETHI AND
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39384
HC-KAR
OTHERS4. Therefore, the appeal is bereft of merits and
the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed and the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal is
confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
tsn*
AIR 2017 SC 5157
