[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Susheelavva on 18 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4334
MFA No. 101810 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101810/2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
LEA COMPLEX, DHARWAD,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
REGIONAL OFFICE,
TP HUB, 1ST FLOOR,
ENKAY COMPLEX,
KESHWAPUR HUBBALLI,
R/BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHANDRASHEKAR
1. SMT. SUSHEELAVVA
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad bench
Date: 2026.03.23 10:02:33
W/O. NAGAPPA BHAJJI,
AGE: 49 YEARS,
+0000
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MALAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: HAVERI,
DIST: HAVERI.
2. PARASHURAM
S/O. NAGAPPA BHAJJI,
AGE: 26 YEARS,
R/O: MALAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: HAVERI,
DIST: HAVERI.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4334
MFA No. 101810 of 2014
HC-KAR
3. MANJUNATH
S/O. NAGAPPA BHAJJI,
AGE: 23 YEARS,
R/O: MALAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: HAVERI,
DIST: HAVERI.
4. SHAHU S/O. DATTATRAYA BHILLE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 4TH MAIN LAST BUS STOP
GANDHINAGAR, DHARWAD.
(OWNER OF THE CAR
NO.KA-25/N-69290
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AMIT ANAND HALLI, ADV. FOR
SRI SG KADADAKATTI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
CONNECTED WITH MVC NO.123/2008 ON THE FILE THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT,
HUBBALLI, THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED
23.01.2014 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4334
MFA No. 101810 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 23.01.2014 passed
by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hubballi
(for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.123/2008, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri NR Kuppelur, learned counsel for appellant submitted
that appeal was by the insurer against challenging finding of
Tribunal on liability. It was submitted that as per claimants at
about 08.15 p.m. on 29.02.2008 Nagappa along with Yallappa
were crossing Pune-Bengaluru road at Ishwar Nagar, when driver
of Wagon-R no.KA-25/N-6929 drove it in rash and negligent
manner and dashed against Nagappa causing his death on spot.
Alleging loss of dependency, his wife and children filed claim
petition against owner and insurer of Wagon-R under Section
166 of MV Act.
3. On appearance, claim petition was opposed on all
counts, based on which, Tribunal framed issues and recorded
evidence. Claimant no.1 along with another deposed as PW1 and
PW2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P6. Owner as well as official
of insurer deposed as RW1 and RW2 and got marked Exs.R1 to
R3.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4334
HC-KAR
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of Car by its driver, vehicle was
insured with insurer and claimants were entitled for
compensation of ₹4,98,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from insurer. Aggrieved, insurer was in appeal.
5. It was submitted there was false implication of insured
vehicle for purpose of claim. It was submitted that after accident,
an application for claiming compensation for own damages was
filed by insured owner of Car, wherein, he had stated that
accident had occurred due to collision with unknown motorcycle,
which would contradict claimants' version. It was submitted,
though insurer examined its official and led evidence and
Tribunal ignored same and fastened liability on insurer. Therefore
sought for allowing appeal.
6. On other hand, Sri Amit Anandhalli, learned counsel for
Sri SG Kadadakatti, advocate for respondents no.1 to 3 opposed
appeal.
7. Sri Anjaneya M., learned counsel submits that MFA
CROB no.100101/2020 filed by claimants was dismissed for non-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4334
HC-KAR
prosecution on 24.10.2017 and no application for restoration was
filed. Submission is noted.
8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,
award passed and record.
9. From above, since insurer is in appeal challenging
finding of Tribunal on liability, point that would arise for
consideration is:
"Whether Tribunal was justified in
holding insurer liable to pay compensation?"
10. Same is answered in affirmative for following:
Though learned counsel for appellant/insurer sought to
contend that in own damages application filed by insured with
insurer, manner of occurrence of accident stated differed from
police investigation records and claimants' version, perusal of
deposition of claimant no.1 as well as eyewitness as PW1 and
PW2 and also deposition of owner of vehicle at RW1, reveals
there is not even bare suggestion about false implication of Car
for purpose of claim. Even though there is mention that an
unknown motorcycle had caused accident, application claiming
own damages was not produced or confronted to any of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4334
HC-KAR
witnesses. Under such circumstances, attempt to wriggle out of
obligation under insurance policy would not be justified. Trial
Court has on consideration of entire material on record held
insurer liable to pay compensation. Consequently, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal for payment of
compensation amount.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CKK / CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
