[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs J Subramanya on 10 February, 2026
-1-
MFA No.9447 of 2013
C/W
MFA CROB No.27 of 2014
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MFA NO.9447/2013(MV-I)
C/W
MFA .CROB.NO.27/2014(MV-I)
IN MFA NO.9447/2013:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GEN INS. CO. LTD.
1ST MAIN, SARASWATHI PURAM
MYSORE-576 001
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
LEGAL MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD.,
#89, II FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
MADIVALA, BENGALURU-68.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP .B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. J. SUBRAMANYA,
S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
D.NO.21/1, N.M. ROAD,
PANDAVPURA TOWN,
PANDAVAPURA-571 434.
2. S.N. RAGHAVENDRA,
S.N. NAGARAJU,
D.NO.1850, CHANMUNDESWARI ROAD,
-2-
MFA No.9447 of 2013
C/W
MFA CROB No.27 of 2014
SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK-571 438.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.N. MADHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
R2-SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.08.2013 PASSED IN
MVC NO.607/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE
& JMFC, MACT, PANDAVAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.82,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
IN MFA .CROB.NO.27/2014:
BETWEEN:
J. SUBRAMANYA,
S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
D.NO.21/1, N.M. ROAD,
PANDAVPURA TOWN,
PANDAVPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. V.N. MADHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. S.N. RAGHAVENDRA,
S/O S.N. NAGARAJU,
D.NO.1850,
CHANMUNDESWARI ROAD,
SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK-571 435.
2. MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD
1ST MAIN, SARASWATHI PURAM
MYSORE-570 009
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
MFA No.9447 of 2013
C/W
MFA CROB No.27 of 2014
(BY SRI. PRADEEP .B, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.9447/2013 IS FILED U/O 41
RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:24.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.607/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT, PANDAVAPURA,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA AND MFA CROB HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 22.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
CAV JUDGMENT
MFA No.9447/2013 is filed by the appellant/Insurance
Company disputing the liability and MFA CROB No.27/2014
is filed by the petitioner/cross objector challenging the
judgment and award dated 24.08.2013 passed in MVC
No.607/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
MACT, Pandavapura.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellants and respondents. The ranks of the parties
are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.
C/W
3. The injured claimant met with an accident on
30.08.2009 and he filed claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.20 lakhs. The Tribunal considering the
entire evidence on record granted an amount of
Rs.82,800/- with interest and the rate of 6% p.a. from
date of petition till deposit.
4. Aggrieved by the said order owner and Insurance
Company preferred appeal and mainly contended that as
per the FIR dated 31.08.2009, respondent No.1 himself
was accused in causing the accident. But he colluded with
owner of the insured vehicle and falsely filed another
complaint after lapse of 7 days from the date of accident.
But the Tribunal ignored the fraud played by the
respondent No.1 and fixed the liability against them.
Appellant is not liable to pay the compensation, as
respondent No.1 himself was accused. Later, he created a
new story by colluding with the police and owner of the
insurance vehicle and Police filed 'B' report on 09.01.2010.
It was not considered by the Tribunal and it amounts to
C/W
miscarriage of justice. One J.Subramanya gave complaint
on 31.08.2009 stating that he was riding motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-11-S-1158 along with suresh and the
police filed charge sheet against S.Shivakumar who was
no way concerned with the case. This shows that Suresh
was not having valid driving licence as on the date of
accident and hence Shivakumar was planted as the rider
of the Insured Vehicle. The Apex Court in case of Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla (2007 ACJ
1928,) held that the contents of FIR should be looked
into. But the Tribunal committed an error in not noticing
the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and thus requested
this court to set aside the award.
5. MFA No.27/2014 is the cross-objections filed by
the claimant in which they stated that they have examined
PW2 and he assessed the disability as 47% to left leg,
22% to the right hand and 29% to the whole body. He
was treated as inpatient from 30.08.2009 to 16.09.2009
and continued treatment as an outpatient for longer
C/W
period. As such, he was bed ridden for longer time and
lost his income. But the Tribunal has not granted any
amount under the head loss of income during treatment,
on the ground that he is a Government Employee and
applied for leave. But the fact remains that leave can be
encashed at the end of the year. Further, he appointed
one attender by name one Ananda and paid Rs.200/- per
day. Though he is a resident of Pandavapura, he was
treated at Mysore and spent substantial amount for
transportation and other incidental expenses. But the said
amount are not granted and thus requested for
enhancement of the compensation.
6. The Manner of accident stated by the petitioner is
that on 30.08.2009 at about 03.30 p.m. while he was
going on motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-11-Q-1558 from
Mysore to Pandavapura and reached near Hotel Mayura of
Srirangapatna on Bangalore-Mysore road, Hero Honda
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-11-S-9918 came from
Mysore side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
C/W
his motorcylce. As a result, he fell down and sustained
grevious injuries. He was working as a stenographer in the
Office of Director, Karnataka and Engineer Research
Station, K.R.Sagara, Srirangapatna and earning a salary of
Rs. 19,500/- per month. He sustained injuries to his right
shoulder and was unable to attend his work. According to
him, accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-11-S-9918. Respondent
No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the injured. As
such, they were jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation. Though notices were served upon
respondent nos.1 and 2, R1 has not filed any objection.
R2/Insurance Company, not admitted policy in respect of
the vehicle bearing REg.No.KA-11-S-9918 for want of
better particulars and more details in favour of respondent
No.1 and it is stated that the driver of the said vehicle has
no valid and effective driving license to drive the particular
category of the vehicle and it amounts to breach of
conditions of the policy.
C/W
7. The Insurance Company further stated that on
31.08.2009 complaint was given by J D subramanya S./o L
Devegowda, stating that he was riding motorcycle bearing
No.KA 11 S1158 and he is the owner of the motorcycle
and accident occurred due to his rash and negligence on
his part. Later he filed false case in collusion with all
concerned and alleged that respondent no.1 is liable for
accident.
8. On 31.08.2009, police filed case against
respondent. RW1 is the legal manager of the company and
RW2 is the investigator of the company, they also filed
Ex. R1 to Ex. R10. Ex.R1 is the complaint filed by the
J.Subramanya, son of Devegowda on 31.08.2009
regarding the accident occurred on 30.08.2009 at about
03.00 p.m., in which it was stated that the petitioner along
with one S.Suresh was proceeding on his bike near the
house belonging to one Dr.Bandigowda and due to his rash
and negligent driving sustained injuries. The police
registered the FIR and after investigation of the matter,
C/W
Sreerangapatna Police Station filed B report and contented
that J.Subramanya has filed complaint only with an
intention to get wrongful gain from the Insurance
Company. However, Tribunal observed that whether
B report was accepted or rejected, Insurance Company
has not produced any relevant documents. B report is
marked as Ex. R3. In the cross-examination of RW1, he
admitted that on 31.08.2009 police filed B report,
regarding complaint lodged by one J.Subramanya.
Insurance company has not challenged the B report till
today. Insurance company gave complaint on 03.01.2012
and contended that the petitioner filed a false case against
respondent No.1 Ex. R1 to R5 are the documents produced
by them. B report is not challenged by D.Subramanya and
Insurance Company. The Charge sheet is filed under
Ex.P9, against accused by name S.Shivakumar, son of late
Shivanna. In Ex.P2, the name of the complainant is
H.P.Karunakara, who is near relative to the petitioner. He
stated that on 30.08.2009 at about 03.30 one Shivakumar
- 10 -
C/W
was riding the motorbike in a rash and negligent manner
and caused accident. As a result, petitioner sustained
injuries. As per the relevant documents petitioner was
admitted on 30.8.2009 discharged on 16.09.2009 from KR
Hospital. The complaintant gave complaint on 06.09.2009.
Even at that time, petitioner was admitted in the hospital.
Ex.P1 to Ex. P98 are the documents filed and even in
Ex.P.89 case sheets also it is clearly noted that with the
history of road traffic accident. P.W.1 was met with an
accident due to the rash and negligent driving on the part
of the rider of the Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-11-S-0018. With the above discussion tribunal
held that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligence of the riding of the motorbike.
9. Further, it was also observed that at Ex.R6/the
copy of the policy relating to the motor bike bearing
Registration No.KA-11-S-0018 it shows that respondent
No.1 is the owner of the vehicle & the validity of the policy
commenced from 25.11.2008 and its validity up to
- 11 -
C/W
14.11.2009 mid night. The accident took place on
30.08.2009. The Policy was in force as on the date of the
accident. It is further stated that according to insurance
company, R1 has no valid and effective driving license and
insurance company not complied Section 3 of IMV Act and
they have not issued any notice to R1 with a direction to
produce necessary DL before this court. Insurance
company failed to prove that R1 violated the terms and
conditions of the policy and held respondent Nos.1 and 2
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
Further, Insurance company gave complaint against
S.N.Raghavendra the owner of the motorcycle bearing
number KA-11-S-0018, accused Raghavendra for creating
bogus and concocted documents to wrongfully gain
monetary benefit and for playing fraud against the
company. In the said complaint, it was stated that
Mr.Subramanya filed case against their company (ICICI
Lombar General insurance Company Ltd.,) in MVC
607/2001, before M.A.C.T, Mandya, colluding with the
- 12 -
C/W
owner of a vehicle, S.N.Raghavendra, accused and driver,
Shivakumar. Further, it was mentioned that the petitioner
was travelling in motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-11-Q-
1558 and the driver of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
11-S-9918, came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed the motorcycle, in which petitioner was proceeding
and further stated that the FIR was registered against
Shivakumar the driver of motor cycle bearing No.KA-11-S-
0018 which was coming in a rash and negligent manner
and hit the insured vehicle. As per the complaint and the
FIR, Sivakumar was riding the said motorcycle. As per
Section 158, (6) of the MV Act police officers shall forward
all relevant documents to the insurer within 30 days and
they failed to do so. They also filed the copy of the FIR
and complaint copy, charge sheet and copy of the petition.
Even in this case, Insurance Company examined RW1 and
filed the relevant documents before this court. Insurance
company relied upon the citation in (2009) KACJ 500 in
- 13 -
C/W
case of 2009) 1 KACJ 500 between Veerappa and Another
Vs. Siddappa and Another it was held as follows:
" The experience has shown that
this branch of law is slowly getting
into the hands of unscrupulous
people who are making a mockery
of judicial process. A disturbing
tread of unholy alliance among the
police, the doctors, the lawyers
and some times even the
Insurance Company, to siphorn out
the public money, and make an
unlawful gain is fast emerging. It is
also gaining respectability and
persons who indulge in such
practices are acclaimed as most
successful in their respective
profession. This is a dangerous
trend, if unchecked would
undermine the judicial process. As
the existing law is inadequate to
check this malady, the Courts not
only have to be careful in
adjudicating such claims but also
find ways to prevent such abuse
They have to balance the interest
of these accident victims and their
legal heirs on one side, by giving
them just compensation at the
earliest, thus giving effect to the
mandate of the parliament, and on
the other hand, to see that the
very process is not abused and
exploited by a handful of persons,
who have attained specialization in
this field, to make personal gains
at the cost of the exchequer. An
onerous responsibility lies on the
- 14 -
C/W
Courts. Therefore, it is imperative
that a strong message is to be
sent to the abusers of the judicial
process to discourage them from
indulging in such practices as well
as the consequences of such abuse
may result in foisting the liability
exclusively on the insured-owner
of the vehicle. (Para 16).
19. It is once again made clear
that notwithstanding the vehicle of
the 1st respondent was insured
with the 2nd respondent, the
insurance company is not liable to
indemnify the insured as we have
recorded a finding that it was not
involved in the accident.
Therefore, there is no third party
liability on the part of the
insurance company to pay
compensation to the claimants.
This amount is awarded in order to
see that in future such false
defences are not filed before
Court, judicial process is not
abused. Therefore, it is only the 1st
respondent/owner who is liable to
pay the aforesaid amount. Ordered
accordingly.
10. Basing on the above citation though it is a
beneficial legislation, it is for the court to see that there is
any abuse of process or implication of vehicle to gain
wrongfully. Admittedly petitioner filed two complaints, in
- 15 -
C/W
the initial complaint, he stated that accident occurred only
due to negligence of motorcycle bearing number KA-11-Q-
1558 in which he was travelling as a passenger. But later
he implicated another vehicle KA-11-S-9918 and they filed
policy of KA-11-S-0018 and accident occurred on
30.08.2009. Initial complaint was given on 31.08.2009
and CC No. 411 of 2009 was also registered based on said
complaint and another complaint was given on 06.08.2009
against insured vehicle KA-11-S-0018. In the initial
complaint, it was stated that one Suresh was proceeding
on his motorbike and later it was stated that
S.Shivakumar was rider of the motorbike. Insurance
company examined the legal manager and investigator of
the company and contended that the second complaint
was given after 7 days and it was registered as
CC No.411/2009 in Crl.No.423/2009. Further, the Police
also filed B report against the complainant, but he gave
complaint to gain wrongfully from the insurance company
and it is marked as Ex.R3. In the judgment, the second
- 16 -
C/W
complaint in Ex.R4 was shown as dated 03.01.2012. The
charge sheet is filed against Shivakumar, son of Shivanna
under Ex.P2. As per Ex.P2, the name of the complainant is
H.P.Karunakara who is the relative of the petitioner. All
these facts clearly shows that though appellant stated that
as per relevant documents, he met with a road accident,
there is implication of another vehicle which is having
insurance to gain wrongfully. It is a clear case of
implication of another vehicle which is having insurance to
gain wrongfully, done in collusion with the owner of the
vehicle i.e., respondent No.1. Therefore, this court finds it
reasonable to exonerate Insurance Company from paying
the liability and only owner of the vehicle is liable to pay
the compensation.
11. The Tribunal granted Rs.79,850/- compensation
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
12. However, in MFA CROB.No.27/2024 filed by the
claimant for enhancement it is contended that as per
- 17 -
C/W
Ex.P6/IMV Report, petitioner sustained Fracture of both
bone, left leg at Ex.P8 and operated and external fixation
was put at the time of the treatment. Injury No.1 is
diagnosed as the grievous in nature. He was aged 51
years on the date of accident and admitted from
30.8.2009 to 16.09.2009 as an inpatient for a period of 18
days. Tribunal granted Rs.40,000 for pain, shock and
agony. Though he stated that he incurred Rs.1,00,000/-
medical expenses, as per relevant documents under
Ex.P.15 to P.58, tribunal granted only Rs.12,800/- towards
medical expenses. The petitioner was hospitalized as an
inpatient for 18 days. As Petitioner was government
employee no amount was granted under the head loss of
future earning capacity. PW2 doctor assessed stated that
petitioner sustained grievous injuries and assessed the
disability for left leg at 47%. The petitioner was earning
salary of Rs.19,729/- as per Ex.P87. The medical
evidence shows that the petitioner disability to the left leg
is 27%. The disability of right hand is 22%. The disability
- 18 -
C/W
of the whole body is 29%. The Tribunal observed that the
injury sustained by him will not affect his working style. As
such, he is not entitled to any compensation under the
head 'Loss of future earning capacity. Admittedly he was
continuing to work as a Stenographer even after he was
sustained injuries in the accident. But he has not received
salary for the period from 31.08.2008 to 11.02.2010.
Ex.P87 is the details regarding the leave period in which
there was no salary paid to the injured.
13. Considering the occupation of the petitioner, his
nature of work and the injuries sustained by the petitioner,
disability assessed by the doctor and the period of
hospitalisation and other relevant factors, this court finds
it reasonable to grant an amount Rs.75,000/- pain and
suffering, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities,
Rs.40,000/- is granted towards transportation, extra
nourishment and attendant charges. The amount granted
towards the medical expenses for an amount of
Rs.12,800/- is hereby confirmed. The petitioner is also
- 19 -
C/W
entitled for the remuneration for the period when he was
not paid salary i.e,. from 31.08.2009 to 11.02.2010 for a
period of 5 months and 10 days to a total of
Rs.1,05,221/- (Rs.19,729/- * 5 months and 10 days)
towards loss of income during laid up period. Further,
Respondent No.2/the Insurance Company is exonerated
from paying the liability, as it is a clear case of implication
of vehicle and played fraud upon the court and owner of
the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation.
6. Thus in all, components awarded by this court
are as below,
Particulars Amount
Sl.Nos.
in Rs.
1 Pain and suffering 75,000
2 Loss of amenities 30,000
3 Transportation, extra 40,000
nourishment and attendant
charges.
5 Loss of income during laid 1,05,221
down period
6 Future medical expenses 12,800
Total 2,63,021
- 20 -
C/W
Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is
enhanced from Rs.79,850/- to Rs.2,63,021/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
7. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
i. Both appeals are allowed .
ii. The judgment and award dated
24.08.2013 passed in MVC No.607/2009 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
MACT, Pandavapura, is modified.
iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.2,63,021/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition
till the date of realization, instead of
Rs.79,850/- granted by the tribunal.
iv. Owner of the vehicle/Respondent No.1 is
liable to pay the entire compensation and
he is directed to deposit the compensation
amount along with interest at 6% p.a.,
within one month from the date of this
order.
- 21 -
C/W
v. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount along with
interest accrued on the same.
vi. Insurance Company is exonerated from paying
the liability.
vii. The amount already deposited by the Insurance
Company shall be refunded.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
AKV
CT:NR
