[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sri. Sudhir Shetty on 20 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2969
MFA No. 7046 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7046 OF 2017(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE AT,
MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD,
OPP. KMC COLLEGE,
MANGALORE-575 004,
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
NANDINI R 1. SRI. SUDHIR SHETTY
Location: S/O. SHRIDHAR SHETTY,
HIGH COURT
OF AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
KARNATAKA R/AT NEAR AYYAPPA BHAJANA MANDIR,
MULLAKADU, KAVOOR VILLAGE,
MANGALURU TALUK,
MANGALURU DISTRICT-575 001.
2. SRI. SACHIN KUMAR
S/O. JAGADISH ACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT D. NO. 11-113-22(1),
ULLANJE HOUSE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2969
MFA No. 7046 of 2017
HC-KAR
MENNABETTU,
KINNIGOLI POST,
MANGALURU-574 150.
(EXPARTE)
...RESPONDENTS
(R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
VIDE ORDER DATED 21.10.2022 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1217/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, MANGALURU, D.K. AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.90,774/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ITS
REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and none appeared for the respondents.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 15.06.2017 passed in MVC.No.1217/2016 by the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mangaluru, D.K.,
the insurer has preferred this appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:2969
HC-KAR
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on
05.06.2016 when the claimant was riding his motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-19-EG-2518 along with his
brother Manoj Kumar as pillion rider, another motorcycle
bearing number KA-19-ES-4974 owned by respondent
No.2 herein and insured by the appellant came in rash and
negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the claimant.
The claimant fell down and sustained injuries and he was
taken to A.J. Hospital, Mangaluru where he was inpatient
from 05.06.2016 to 09.06.2016 and as such, he preferred
a claim petition claiming compensation from the owner
and insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. The said petition was resisted by the appellant-
insurer contending that there was no such accident
involving the offending motorcycle and that the nexus
between the offending vehicle and the injuries suffered by
the claimant need to be established by the claimant. It
was further contented that the accident had occurred due
to the negligence of the claimant himself, who was riding
NC: 2026:KHC:2969
HC-KAR
the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and
therefore the vehicle insured by the insurer has been
falsely implicated in order to claim compensation. All other
contentions of the claimant were vehemently and
meticulously denied by the insurer in its written
statement.
5. Respondent No.2 herein who is the owner of the
offending motorcycle did not appear, despite service of
notice.
6. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and
when the matter was slated for adducing oral evidence,
the claimant appeared and filed his affidavit and Exs.P1 to
P6 were marked by him. Later, he did not turn up for the
cross-examination. Thereafter, his brother, who was the
pillion rider filed his affidavit evidence and claimed himself
to be deposing on the basis of a General Power of Attorney
executed by the claimant. He got marked two documents
NC: 2026:KHC:2969
HC-KAR
as Exs.P7 and P8. Later, he also didn't turn up for cross-
examination.
7. The Tribunal after hearing the arguments,
proceeded to decide the matter and allowed the petition
awarding a compensation of Rs.90,774/- along with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its
realization and held that the appellant-insurance company
is liable to pay the compensation amount.
8. Being aggrieved, the appellant - insurance
company is before this Court in this appeal.
9. Despite service of notice to the respondents in
this appeal, they have not appeared before this Court.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that when there is no documentary evidence
which would show the involvement of the offending
vehicle, the Tribunal could not have fastened the liability
upon the appellant. It is pointed out that in the written
statement the appellant had denied the involvement of the
NC: 2026:KHC:2969
HC-KAR
vehicle in the said accident. The testimony of PWs.1 and 2
remained untested, since they did not offer themselves for
cross-examination despite granting ample opportunities.
11. Moreover, investigation papers were not
produced on behalf of the claimant to show that the
vehicle owned by respondent No.2 and insured by the
appellant was the offending vehicle and it had caused the
accident. The FIR and the complaint filed by PW.2-Manoj
Kumar, do not mention the vehicle number and the name
of the rider. Therefore, it was essential for the claimant to
offer himself for cross-examination.
12. It is submitted that when the charge sheet has
not been produced by the claimant which indicates the
involvement of the motorcycle owned by respondent No.2
and insured by the appellant, it was not fair on the part of
the Tribunal to pass the award directing the appellant to
pay the compensation. Hence, he seeks to allow the
appeal and dismiss the claim petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:2969
HC-KAR
13. A careful perusal of the records would reveal
that the FIR and complaint, which are produced at Exs.P1
and P2 would indicate that an unknown rider with two
pillion riders had dashed against the motorcycle of the
petitioner and he fell down. The FIR do not mention the
offending vehicle number at all. The other documents
produced by the petitioner are the medical records and in
none of these documents, there is any mention about the
involvement of the vehicle owned by respondent No.1 and
insured by respondent No.2. The petition filed by the
petitioner contend that the motorcycle bearing No.KA-19-
ES-4974 was involved in the accident. But the
investigation papers nowhere show that the vehicle owned
by R-1 and insured by R-2 was involved in the accident. It
is worth to note that the respondent No.2 in the written
statement has vehemently denied the involvement of the
motorcycle insured by it. Obviously, respondent No.1 did
not appear before the Tribunal. The petitioner rely upon
his own testimony and the Accident Information Report to
NC: 2026:KHC:2969
HC-KAR
establish that the vehicle owned by respondent No.1 and
insured by respondent No.2 is involved in the accident.
14. It is pertinent to note that there is heavy
reliance by the petitioner on his own testimony and the
testimony of his brother who was the pillion rider.
Therefore, it was essential for the petitioner and the
eyewitness to the accident i.e., PW2 to offer themselves
for the cross-examination. Curiously, PW.2 claims to be
the Power of Attorney Holder of PW.1. In an action for
compensation for personal injury, it is difficult to accept
that the testimony of the GPA holder would be an
acceptable testimony. Therefore, It is evident that the
cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 was an essential part of
the enquiry, which should have been conducted by the
Tribunal. The perusal of the impugned judgment of the
Tribunal would indicate that simply relying upon the
affidavits of PWs.1 and 2, it has thrown the burden on the
respondent to disprove a fact. First of all, the fact
contented by the petitioner had not been proved at all.
NC: 2026:KHC:2969
HC-KAR
There were no material on record to show the involvement
of the vehicle owned by the respondent No.1 except the
Accident Information Report at Ex.P7. It is only the oral
testimony of PWs.1 and 2, which indicts the vehicle owned
by respondent No.1. Therefore, the observation of the
Tribunal that the vehicle bearing No.KA-19-ES-4974 was
involved in the accident become doubtful. It appears that
it relied only on Ex.P7, which is accident information
report, wherein, the number of vehicle owned by
respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 is
mentioned. Therefore, unless the PWs.1 and 2 were
subjected to cross-examination, it was not proper on the
part of the Tribunal to pass a judgment awarding
compensation and fastening liability on the respondent. In
the result, the matter deserves to be remanded to the
Tribunal.
15. This Court could have allowed the appeal and
dismissed the claim petition straightaway, but the Motor
Vehicles Act being a beneficial legislation, meant for
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2969
HC-KAR
helping the injured in an accident, this Court feels that it is
a fit case, where the matter has to be remanded. Hence,
the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is
remanded to the Tribunal with following
directions:
a) The Tribunal shall issue notice to the petitioner
or his counsel and direct him to offer PWs.1 and
2 for cross-examination.
b) If PWs.1 and 2 do not offer themselves for cross
examination, despite an effort by the Tribunal,
or after exhausting three opportunities to them,
the Tribunal may decide the matter in
accordance with law.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2969
HC-KAR
c) The effect of not offering PWs.1 and 2 for cross-
examination, particularly in view of the
observations made by this Court in the body of
this judgment, the Tribunal shall decide the
matter or may dismiss the matter by striking
down the evidence led.
d) The appellant is directed to appear before the
Tribunal on 03.03.2026 without waiting for any
notice by the Tribunal.
The amount in deposit, if any, be refunded to the
appellant.
The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court
records, forthwith.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
CR/NR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
