Karnataka High Court
The National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Bhaskar Shetty on 25 October, 2025
-1-
MFA No. 4930 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4930 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR,
NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE,
UDUPI.
THE APPELLANT IS REP. HEREIN BY:
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUBHARAM COMPLEX,
144, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.SRIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BHASKAR SHETTY
S/O LATE MAHABALA SHETTY,
AGED 55 YEARS
R/O ADOPLAMANE ARDI,
ALBADI VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA-576 201.
2. SANDEEP
S/O KORAGA HANDA,
R/O NILUVANGILU POST & VILLAGE,
-2-
MFA No. 4930 of 2018
KOPPA TALUK,
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 126.
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD
CRESCENT COURT 1ST FLOOR,
K.M.ROAD,
CHICKMAGALURU BRANCH OFFICE:
KUNDAPURA-576 201.
4. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O PADMAYYA SHETTY,
R/O SHREE POOJA,
NEAR CHETHAN HOSPITAL,
HEBRI, KARKALA-574 104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C.SEETHA RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
R-2 AND R-4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DT:23/05/2023-NOTICE TO R-1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
28.02.2018 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.630/2015 BY THE COURT OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT KUNDAPURA AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
MFA No. 4930 of 2018
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment
and Award dated 28.02.2018, passed in MVC No.630/2015
on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura (herein after referred
to as 'the Tribunal' for short) and dismiss the claim petition
in MVC No.630/2015.
2. The appellant herein is the respondent No.4
before the Tribunal and The respondent No.1 herein is the
petitioner/claimant before the tribunal and the respondents
No.2 to 4 herein are the respondents No.1 to 3 before the
Tribunal.
The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as
follows:
3. The claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The case of the
petitioner/claimant is that on 25.01.2015 at about 11:20
a.m., while traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-20-EF-7406 from Belve towards
Someshwara side, near a Milk Dairy at Ardi-Albadi, a
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-18-X-2608, (offending
motor cycle) driven by its rider in a rash and negligent
manner at high speed, came from the opposite direction
and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle. As a result, the
petitioner sustained grievous injuries including (i) multiple
facial bone fractures (fracture of both nasal bones, anterior
and posterior wall of right maxillary sinus, floor of right
orbit, and right zygomatic arch) and (ii) abrasions of size
2x1 cms. over the right upper eyelid. The petitioner was
immediately shifted to KMC Hospital, Manipal, Udupi Taluk,
where he was treated as an inpatient and discharged on
02.02.2015 after undergoing surgery and also treated for
the several other injuries suffered by the claimant.
4. The petitioner states that he spent about
Rs.1,00,000/- on treatment, nourishing food, medicines,
and attendant charges and requires a further sum of
Rs.25,000/- for future treatment. Prior to the accident, the
petitioner was hale and healthy and working as a mason,
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the injuries
sustained, he is unable to resume his avocation and has
suffered permanent physical disablement, disfigurement,
mental agony, and loss of amenities of life. The claimant,
therefore, claims a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-
with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident
till realization. The claimant submits that the respondent
No.1, being the R.C. owner-cum-driver of the offending
motorcycle, and respondent No.2, the insurer under Policy
No.2414003114P105296756, are jointly and severally liable
to pay the compensation. It is further stated that Crime
No.11/2015 was registered by Shankaranarayana Police
Station against respondent No.1.
5. Upon service of notice, respondent No.1
remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2-Insurance
Company denied the entire claim, contending that the rider
of the offending motorcycle did not possess a valid and
effective driving license at the time of the accident and that
the petition suffers from misjoinder and non-joinder of
necessary parties since the insurer and the insured of the
petitioner's motor cycle are necessary and proper parties to
the petition before the Tribunal.
6. The respondent No.4, the insurer of the
petitioner's motorcycle, stated that respondent No.4 and
respondent No.3 were formal parties, as no specific relief
was sought against them. It denied the personal particulars
of the claimant and contended that the claim amount is
exorbitant, requesting that any interest awarded be
restricted to 6% per annum. It was further stated that the
accident took place only because of the rash and negligent
driving of the offending motorcycle.
7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the
Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence and
the Tribunal held that the claim petition filed under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is allowed. The petitioner is
awarded compensation of Rs.3,75,527/- with interest at
6% per annum from the date of the accident until
realization. The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay 50% of the compensation, and
respondents No.3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to
pay the remaining 50%. The respondent No.2 and
respondent No.4 shall each deposit their respective 50%
shares of the compensation in the Tribunal's office within
one month from today. The claimant may seek release of
the deposited amount in accordance with the guidelines of
the Apex Court in A.V.Padma & Ors. v. Venugopal &
Others reported in (2012) 3 SCC 378.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company that the Tribunal has erred
in fixing 50% liability on the Appellant by wrongly applying
the doctrine of "composite negligence". The claimant
himself had pleaded and proved that the accident was
solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of
motorcycle No.KA-18-X-2608, which came from
Someshwara side in high speed and dashed against the
claimant's vehicle. Therefore, there was no negligence
whatsoever on the part of the rider of motorcycle No.KA-
20-EF-7406, which was insured with the appellant.
Consequently, the concept of "composite negligence" was
inapplicable.
9. It is further contended that the Apex Court, in
the case of Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 clearly explained the
distinction between contributory and composite negligence,
holding that in cases of composite negligence, the injured
person does not contribute to the accident and the
negligence is that of two or more other persons. In view of
the settled proposition of law, the finding of the Tribunal
that both riders were equally negligent is wholly
unsustainable in law.
10. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in
procedure by directing the impleadment of the appellant
and the owner of the insured vehicle at the final stage of
proceedings. The matter was posted for final orders on
26.02.2017, 22.07.2017, 03.07.2017, 05.08.2017, and
09.08.2017, and only by order dated 09.08.2017 did the
Tribunal direct the claimant to implead the appellant and
the registered owner. Even though the appellant appeared
and objected to such impleadment, the Tribunal, by order
dated 23.11.2017, allowed I.A.No.2 and pronounced
judgment without affording an opportunity to cross-
examine the witnesses or lead evidence. This is in clear
violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to
the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. SK Ali, reported
in 2014 SCC Online Bom 1370. Therefore, the Award
passed by the Tribunal is in breach of Section 168 of the
MV Act.
11. It is also contended that the Tribunal ignored the
material evidence on record, including the fact that the
Claimant himself stated in his Claim Petition and affidavit
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the rider of motorcycle No.KA-18-X-2608. The
police have also filed a charge-sheet against the said rider
for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC.
Despite this, the Tribunal incorrectly recorded a finding of
composite negligence and directed the appellant insurer of
- 10 -
motorcycle No.KA-20-EF-7406 to pay 50% of the
compensation.
12. The appellant would contend that the Tribunal, in
para 13, of its judgment and Award, it is also observed that
the petitioner's motorcycle was moving almost on its
proper lane, yet held the appellant liable for 50%. Further,
the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
amenities and a total compensation of Rs.3,75,527/-, which
are exorbitant and disproportionate to the nature of injuries
sustained. The findings of the Tribunal being contrary to
law, facts, and evidence on record, the impugned judgment
and Award dated 23.11.2017 are liable to be set aside.
13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Respondent No. 3. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and
4 are unrepresented. The appellant and respondent No.3
are the Insurance Companies where the joint liability has
been fixed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award dated
28.02.2018, passed in MVC No.630/2015 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims
- 11 -
Tribunal, Kundapura. Further, it is observed that the
respondent No.3 has not filed any appeal against the
impugned Award, it seems Respondent No.3 has accepted
the Award passed by the Tribunal.
14. On hearing the learned counsel for both sides,
perusal of the impugned Judgment and Award in
28.02.2018, passed in MVC No.630/2015 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kundapura and the material on record, the
Tribunal held that composite negligence on the part of both
the motor cycles is held as 50% each. The vehicles were
covered by the Policy, in view of the same, the respondent
Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay
50% of the compensation to the claimant and interest at
the rate of 6% p.a., on the compensation awarded.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned Judgment and Award does not call for any
interference as there is no infirmity in the Judgment of the
Tribunal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
- 12 -
15. In view of the above discussion, the following
order is passed:
i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed.
ii) The Judgment and Award dated 28.02.2018,
passed in MVC No.630/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kundapura, are affirmed.
ii) Apportionment of compensation shall be made as
per the Award passed by the Tribunal.
iii) The appellant is directed to deposit the
compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of
three months. On such deposit, the claimants/respondents
are directed to withdraw the amount in terms of the Award
of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
BNV
