[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Manager vs Kubera on 2 April, 2026

                                                              -1-
                                                                          NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968
                                                                      MFA No. 100283 of 2014


                                   HC-KAR




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

                                       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                                        BEFORE

                                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

                              MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100283 OF 2014 (MV-I)

                                  BETWEEN:

                                  THE MANAGER,
                                  UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
                                  BRANCH OFFICE P B NO.114,
                                  CRESENT COURT K M ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALORE-577101,
                                  REP. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
                                  NO.2 1ST FLOOR, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI,
                                  R/BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
                                                                                  ...APPELLANT
                                  (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)

                                  AND:

                                  1.   SRI. KUBERA S/O. HANUMANTAPPA LAMBANI,
                                       AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC. VEGATABLE VENDOR,
                                       R/O. KAKOL TANDA, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.
           Digitally signed
           by
           YASHAVANT
           NARAYANKAR
           Location: HIGH
                                  2.   C H VENKATANARANAREDDY S/O. RAGHAVAREDDY,
YASHAVANT  COURT OF
NARAYANKAR KARNATAKA
           DHARWAD
           BENCH
           Date:
                                       AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND CONTRACTOR,
                                       R/O. CHETANA NILAYA, RAMESHWARA NAGAR,
           2026.04.06
           16:55:53
           +0530



                                       K M ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALORE-577101,
                                       (OWNER LORRY NO.KA-18/A-1464)
                                                                                ...RESPONDENTS
                                  (BY SRI. VISHWANATH L. HEDGE, ADVOCATE FOR
                                      SRI. HARSHWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
                                      SRI. M.R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

                                        THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
                                  PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH MVC
                                  NO.532/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
                                  AMACT, RANEBENNUR, THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED
                                  27.11.2013 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
                                 -2-
                                                NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968
                                            MFA No. 100283 of 2014


HC-KAR



     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

                         ORAL JUDGMENT

United India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurer of

Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-18-A-1464, has

maintained this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and

award dated 27.11.2013 passed in MVC No.532/2010 by the

learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT,

Ranebennur (for short, 'Tribunal').

2. The claimant namely Sri Kubera maintained the

petition in MVC No.532/2010 under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of ₹18,00,000/- from the

owner and insurer of Tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-18-

A-1464 on the ground that on 24.02.2009 at about 07.00 a.m.,

he met with an accident due to actionable negligence on the part

of the driver of the said vehicle and sustained grievous injuries.

3. On service of notice, both the owner and insurer of

Tipper Lorry appeared before the Tribunal through their counsel,

filed their objection and contested the petition. Thereafter, the

Tribunal decided the claim petition on merits of the case. The

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968

HC-KAR

Tribunal, based on the materials available on record held that the

claimant has established having suffered the injuries on account

of negligence on the part of the driver of Tipper Lorry and

allowed the claim petition in part, holding that the claimant is

entitled for compensation of ₹2,99,300/- together with the

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till

its realization. Being agreed by the said judgment and award,

the insurer has come up with this appeal.

4. Sri Naganagouda R. Kuppelur, learned Counsel for

the Insurer vehemently submitted that the Tribunal committed a

serious error in placing reliance on misrepresented version of

PW1 and proceeded to hold that the claimant has proved the

accident, in spite of there being sufficient evidence on record to

show that the claimant had sustained injuries due to fall from

lorry cabin. He submitted that the insurer has adduced evidence

before the Tribunal to show that the claimant had fallen from the

lorry cabin and that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is

contrary to the contents of the documents marked at Ex.R3 to

R7. He contented that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is

against the factual aspects of the case and contrary to law. As

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968

HC-KAR

such, he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the

impugned award.

5. Per contra, Sri Vishwanath Hegde, learned Counsel

appearing for Sri Harshavardana M. Patil, learned Counsel for the

Claimant vigorously supported the findings recorded by the

Tribunal and its conclusion on the ground that the contents of

Wound Certificate marked at Ex.P7, the Discharge Summary

marked at Ex.P10 coupled with nature of injuries sustained by

the claimant, probabilise the case of the claimant. He further

submitted that as on the date of accident, the claimant was aged

about 18 years and the father of the claimant was busy in

providing treatment to the claimant at different hospitals and as

such there was some delay in lodging the complaint. In the said

circumstances, he submitted that there is no substance in the

objection raised by the insurer disputing the accident or in

opposing the impugned award.

6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both

sides, the only point that arises for consideration of this Court is

whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the

claimant had sustained injuries on account of actionable

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968

HC-KAR

negligence on the part of the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing

registration No.KA-18-A-1464?

7. It is the definite case of the claimant that on

24.02.2009 at about 07.00 a.m., when he was sleeping near his

tent in Medhini Jelly Crusher, Geramaradi Village of Tarikere

Taluk, the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing No.KA-18-A-1464 rashly

and negligently took the said vehicle in reverse direction and as

a result, rear wheel of the tipper lorry ran over left side waist of

the claimant and caused serious injuries to his kidney and other

parts of the body. Ex.P2 goes to show that a formal complaint

came to be lodged in connection with the incident only on

25.05.2009 at 07.00 p.m., wherein the complainant i.e, the

father of claimant stated that because of lack of information and

as he was busy in providing treatment to the son, he could not

lodge the complaint immediately. The jurisdictional police

investigated the case and on its completion, laid a charge sheet

against the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing No.KA-18-A-1464 for

the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.

8. The insurer is mainly relying on the contents of Ex.R3

i.e. In-patient Record of Nanjappa Hospital and the testimony of

RW-2 namely Dr. R.D.Hegde, to dispute the alleged incident and

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968

HC-KAR

to contend that the claimant had sustained injuries due to fall

from lorry cabin. Perusal of the record reveals that RW-2 has

adduced his evidence based on the contents of Ex.R3, wherein

alleged history of injury is mentioned as "fall from lorry cabin".

9. It is the definite case of the claimant that

immediately after the incident, initially he had been taken to

Government Hospital, Tarikere, and then he was taken to

Nanjappa Hospital in Shivamogga and Kasturba Hospital in

Manipal, for higher treatment. The claimant has produced the

Wound Certificate issued from Government Hospital, Tarikere at

Ex.P7. This document contains history of injury as "RTA by

Lorry". This document also contains a specific mention about

concerned doctor having found "multiple abrasions (tyre marks)

on the left side abdomen extending to left side of chest and left

shoulder". Added to the above, the Discharge Summary issued

from Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, produced at Ex.P10 contains

history of illness as "patient sustained injury to abdomen, run

over by lorry on 24.02.2009, was first sent to local hospital, then

brought to KMC Hospital on 25.02.2009". Thereby, it becomes

clear that immediately after the incident, the claimant or his

attendant had informed the hospital authorities about the

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968

HC-KAR

claimant having sustained injuries because of running over by

lorry.

10. Further, if we consider the nature of injuries

sustained by the claimant i.e. pancreatic, splenic and left renal

injuries probabilise the contention of the claimant, having

suffered those injuries because of running over of tipper lorry

than fall from lorry cabin. It is also relevant to note that as per

version of the claimant the incident had occurred on 24.02.2009

at about 07.00 a.m. and the wound certificate at Ex.P7 goes to

show that he was examined by the doctor of Government

Hospital, Tarikere on 24.02.2009 at 08.30 a.m. Whereas, the

entries in the case sheet produced Ex.R3 claim that the claimant

had suffered injuries on account of fall from lorry cabin, which

occurred at around 09.00 a.m. Thus, on re-appreciating the

materials available on record, this Court holds that the Tribunal

has not committed any error in coming to conclusion that the

claimant had met with an accident due to actionable negligence

on the part of the driver of tipper lorry bearing No.KA-18-A-

1464. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the

"negative".

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4968

HC-KAR

11. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

a) The appeal is dismissed.

b) Consequently, the judgment and award dated 27.11.2013 passed in MVC No.532/2010 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Ranebennur is confirmed.