[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Neeta W/O Jayakumar Upadhye on 1 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4891
MFA No. 101290 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101290/2014 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101291/2014 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.101290/2014
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI,
REP. BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
T.P.HUB, SRINATH COMPLEX, II FLOOR,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580022.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NEETA W/O. JAYAKUMAR UPADHYE,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. TAILORING, NOW NIL,
R/O. ULLAGADDI-KHANAPUR,
TAL. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
2. SRI. RAJESH S/O. MADHUKAR PAWAR,
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BLOCK NO.1,
Date: 2026.04.02 16:48:02
+0530
SIDDAVINAYAK APARTMENT, S.V.COLONY,
CONGRESS ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI.
3. SRI. SANJAY KISHAN MALASARE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KHANER,
TAL. AND DIST. SATARA-415001.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KUSHAL V. BOLMAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O/DATED 05.02.2024 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3-HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2014 IN M.V.C
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4891
MFA No. 101290 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2014
HC-KAR
NO.2948/2010 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI & ETC.
IN MFA NO.101291/2014
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.
REP. BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD.,
T.P. HUB, SRINATH COMPLEX, II FLOOR,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI - 580 022.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NEETA W/O. JAYAKUMAR UPADHYE,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. TAILORING NOW NIL,
R/O. ULLAGADDI-KHANAPUR, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. PRAVIN S/O. JAYAKUMAR UPADHYE,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. ULLAGADDI-KHANAPUR,
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
3. RAHUL S/O. JAYAKUMAR UPADHYE,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. ULLAGADDI-KHANAPUR,
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
4. SRI. RAJESH S/O. MADHUKAR PAWAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BLOCK NO.1,
SIDDIVINAYAK APARTMENT, S.V.COLONY,
CONGRESS ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI.
5. SRI. SANJAY KISHAN MALASARE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KHANER,
TQ. AND DIST. SATARA - 415 001.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KUSHAL V. BOLMAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
NOTICE TO R4 AND R5-HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4891
MFA No. 101290 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2014
HC-KAR
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2014 IN M.V.C NO.2949/2010
ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.
MACT, BELAGAVI & ETC.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
ORAL JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
who is Respondent No.3 in MVC Nos.2498/2010 and 2949/2010
on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge &
AMACT, Belagavi (for short, the 'Tribunal'), challenging
common judgment dated 22.01.2024 and the awards therein.
2. The injured namely Smt. Neeta and the legal
representatives of Sri Jayakumar Chintamani Upadhye
maintained the claim petitions in MVC No. 2948/2010 and
2949/2010 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking
compensation from the owners of Truck bearing No. KA-06-387
and MH-11-M-4506 as well as the insurer of truck bearing No.
MH-11-M-4506, for the personal injuries sustained by Smt.
Neeta and the death of Jayakumar Chintamani Upadhye in road
traffic accident occurred on 04.04.2009 near Managutti Cross
on NH-4.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4891
HC-KAR
3. On service of notice, insurer appeared before the
Tribunal in both the claim petitions through their counsel and
contested the petitions by filing their objection. Thereafter, the
Tribunal framed issues, held enquiry and then disposed of the
claim petitions on merits of the case.
4. The Tribunal, based on the materials available on
record held that the accident in question occurred due to
negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles, i.e. No. KA-06-
387 and MH-11-M-4506. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petitions in part holding that the claimant in MVC
No.2948/2010 is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,27,000/-
and the claimants in MVC No.2949/2010 are entitled for the
compensation of Rs.10,58,088/- together with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurer
has preferred these appeals.
5. Sri M.K. Soudagar, learned Counsel for the Insurer
vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has committed a
serious error in holding that the accident in question occurred
due to involvement of the two trucks, i.e. No. KA-06-387 and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4891
HC-KAR
MH-11-M-4506. He drew the attention of this Court to the
complaint lodged by the claimant in MVC No.2948/2010
marked at Ex.P1 and submitted that the truck bearing No. MH-
11-M-4506 was not at all involved in the accident in question.
He further submitted that as the truck No. KA-06-387 had no
insurance coverage, later on the claimants have made an
attempt to contend that the accident in question occurred due
to involvement of above referred two trucks by changing their
version. In the above circumstances, he submitted that the
Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the materials on
record and committed an error in holding them liable to pay the
compensation awarded in these claim petitions. He has also
contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive.
6. Per contra, Sri Kushal V. Bolmal, learned Counsel
for the Claimants vigorously submitted that PW1 was not in
good state of mind at the time of lodging the complaint and as
such, she could not mention about the other truck involved in
the accident, while lodging the complaint. He further submitted
that the accident in question occurred due to rash and
negligent driving on the part of the drivers of both the trucks
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4891
HC-KAR
bearing No. KA-06-387 and MH-11-M-4506, who knocked down
the motorcycle, resulting in fatal injuries to the claimant and
her husband, who later on succumbed to injuries.
7. Having heard the arguments of the counsels
appearing for both sides, the following points arise for
consideration of this Court:
1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the
Truck bearing No.MH-11-M-4506 was involved in
the accident in question and its driver was also
contributed for the accident?
2. Whether the insurer has made out valid grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment and award?
8. It is the case of the claimants that on 04.04.2009
when deceased Jayakumar Chintamani Upadhye was
proceeding in his motorcycle bearing No. KA-23-R-4491 along
with his wife from Dharwad to Ullagaddi Khanapur, at about
8.00 p.m., near Managutti Cross near Shindehalli Bridge, two
trucks bearing No. KA-06-387 and MH-11-M-4506 came from
behind in rash and negligent manner and in the process of
overtaking each other, the drivers of those trucks lost control
over their vehicles and dashed against each other's vehicle. It
is stated that in the result, those vehicles dashed against the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4891
HC-KAR
motorcycle of the deceased from behind and caused fatal
injuries to the deceased and his wife.
9. The case papers reveal that in order to prove the
accident, the claimants have not examined any other person
than the claimant in MVC No.2948/2010 namely, Smt. Neeta.
In her evidence, Smt. Neeta has reiterated the averments of
the claim petitions and claimed that the accident in question
occurred due to involvement of trucks bearing No.KA-06-387
and MH-11-M-4506.
10. During her cross-examination, Smt. Neeta has
categorically admitted that at the time of lodging the complaint
as per Ex.P1, she had stated that the driver of lorry bearing
No.KA-06-387 was responsible for the accident, based on which
the jurisdictional police registered a case, investigated the
matter and filed a charge sheet against the driver of concerned
lorry. However, she did not whisper anything about the
circumstances in which she could not inform the jurisdictional
police regarding involvement of one more vehicle i.e., Truck
bearing No.MH-11-M-4506 in the accident in question.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4891
HC-KAR
11. Added to the above, the claimants have produced
one more complaint lodged by one Sri Sunil Babu Borde, at
Ex.P.8. The said complaint came to be lodged in connection
with an accident that took place at the same spot involving the
trucks bearing No. KA-06-387 and MH-11-M-4506. As per the
version of the said complaint, on 04.04.2009 at about 09.00
p.m., when the de-facto complainant therein along with others,
was traveling in the truck bearing No.MH-11-M-4506, the said
vehicle met with an accident when it dashed against the truck
bearing No.KA-06-387, which was on the road. Even this
complaint does not contain any mention about the persons on
the motorcycle bearing No. KA-23-R-4491, having sustained
injuries in such incident.
12. Undisputedly, the jurisdictional police have
investigated both the cases registered pursuant to the
complaints lodged by Smt. Neeta and Sri Sunil Babu Borde and
filed separate charge sheet in those cases as per Exs.P12 and
P13. The said charge sheets do not state about involvement of
three vehicles i.e., the motorcycle and two trucks in question,
in any one of the incidents referred in Ex.P1 or P8.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4891
HC-KAR
13. It is to be noted that the first complaint marked at
Ex.P1 came to be lodged on 04.04.2009 at 9.30 p.m., whereas
the second complaint marked at Ex.P8 was lodged on
05.04.2009 at 4. a.m. Further, as per Ex.P1 the alleged
incident had taken place at about 8.00 p.m., whereas as per
Ex.P8 the incident had taken place at about 9.00 p.m. Thereby
one can easily make out clear gap of one hour between the
incidents mentioned in Ex.P1 and Ex.P8. Thus, on
re-appreciation of the materials available on record, it becomes
clear that the Tribunal has committed grave error in holding
that the incidents referred in Ex.P1 and Ex.P8 had taken place
in sequence and at the same time. The Tribunal has not
bestowed its attention to the contents of Ex.P1, P8, P12 and
P13 or assigned any reasons to accept self-serving statement
of the claimants without corroborating materials. In view of the
same, this Court holds that the Tribunal has clearly erred in
holding that the truck bearing No.MH-11-M-4506 was involved
in the accident, wherein Smt. Neeta and her husband sustained
the injuries and that its driver was also responsible for such
incident.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4891
HC-KAR
14. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has also
observed that the insurer herein was the common insurer of
both the trucks in question. However, there is no material on
record to show that the truck bearing No.KA-06-387 was
insured with the insurer herein. Even learned Counsel for the
Claimants could not point out any document in the record,
which supports the above finding of the Tribunal. For the
aforesaid reasons, it is held that the Tribunal has committed an
error in fastening the liability on the insurer of satisfying the
impugned awards. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered
in the affirmative.
15. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) The appeals filed by the insurer in MFA
Nos.101290/2014 & 101291/2014 are allowed.
b) The impugned common judgment and awards
dated 22.01.2014 passed in MVC
Nos.2948/2010 and 2949/2010 on the file of
learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT, Belgaum are modified by
absolving the insurer/Respondent No.3 therein
from the liability of satisfying the award as
directed by the Tribunal.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4891
HC-KAR
c) The insurer is permitted to withdraw the
amount deposited in these appeals, if any.
d) Draw up modified awards accordingly.
e) The Registry is directed to send back trial
court record to concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
BVV & JTR
CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3
