[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Gowramma @ Mangala Gowramma vs Cholamanadalam Ms General Ins Co Ltd on 23 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
MFA No. 6085 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 5313 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6085 OF 2014 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5313 OF 2014 (MV-D)
IN MFA No. 6085/2014:
BETWEEN:
1. GOWRAMMA @ MANGALA GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE RAJANNA @ FAKEERA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,.
2. VENKATESH
S/O LATE RAJANNA @ FAKEERA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
3. LAVANYA @ CHAYA LAKSHMI
D/O LATE RAJANNA @ FAKEERA,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
Digitally signed PETITIONER 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
by
PADMASHREE REPT. BY THEIR MOTHER AND
SHEKHAR DESAI NATURAL GUARDIAN GOWRAMMA
Location: High @ MANGALA GOWRAMMA
Court of W/O LATE RAJANNA @ FAKEERA,
Karnataka
ALL ARE NATIVE OF NO.31,
KAKARAMANAHALLI-VG,
BIDADI-HO, RAMANAGAR TALUK
AND DISTRICT-571 511
PRESENTLY R/AT:
C/O VIJAYAKUMAR, NO. 189,
3RD MAIN , 7TH CROSS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
MFA No. 6085 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 5313 of 2014
HC-KAR
K M LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 078.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P SURESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHOLAMANADALAM MS GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
NO.9/2, 2ND FLOOR, ULSOOR ROAD,
(NEAR BEGAUM HALL BUS STOP),
BANGALORE-560 042.
PRESENT ADDRESS:
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INS.CO.LTD.
UNIT NO.4, 9TH FLOOR (LEVEL-6),
GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX,
59TH "C" CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB,
RAJAJINAGAR 4TH "M" BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560 010.
REPT. BY ITS INCHARGE MANAGER.
2. B.M. SHIVANNA S/O MADAIAH,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT NO. 52, JANATHA COLONY,
KENCHAKUPPE,
BIDADI POST AND HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 511.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y P VENKATAPATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R1,
R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 4.3.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4633/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ACMM & XXIV ASCJ,
BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
MFA No. 6085 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 5313 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN MFA NO. 5313/2014:
BETWEEN:
M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
UNIT NO.4, 9TH FLOOR (LEVEL-6)
"GOLDEN HEIGHTS" COMPLEX,
59TH 'C' CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB,
RAJAJINAGAR 4TH M BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 010
(ABOVE IS THE PRESENT ADDRESS)
FORMERLY AT NO.9/1, 2ND FLOOR
ULSOOR ROAD
(NEAR BEGAUM HALL BUS STOP)
BENGALURU-560 042.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. Y P VENKATAPATHI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT GOWRAMMA @
MANGALA GOWRAMMA
NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAJANNA @ FAKEERA
2. SRI. VENKATESH
NOW AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAJANNA @ FAKEERA
3. KUM. LAVANYA @ CHAYALAXMI
NOW AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
D/O LATE RAJANNA @ FAKEERA
(SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN)
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KAKAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NO.31, BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
MFA No. 6085 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 5313 of 2014
HC-KAR
AND PRESENTLY
R/A C/O VIJAYA KUMAR
NO.189, 3RD MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
K.M.LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 078.
4. SRI.B.M.SHIVANNA
S/O MADAIAH, MAJOR,
RESIDING AT NO.52,
JANATHA COLONY, KENCHANKUPPE,
BIDADI POST AND HOBLI,
RAMANAGAR TALUK
AND DISTRICT-571 511.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
R-2 AND R-4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED,
R-3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R-1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 4.3.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4633/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ACMM & XXIV ASCJ,
BANGALORE AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,77,000/- TO
THE PETITIONERS WITH INTERES AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT OF ENTIRE
AMOUNT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 04.02.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
MFA No. 6085 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 5313 of 2014
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
These appeals arise out of the judgment and award
dated 04.03.2014 passed by the XXIV Addl. Small Causes
Judge, Bengaluru in MVC No.4633 of 2012.
2. M.F.A.No.6085/2014 is filed by the claimants
seeking enhancement of the compensation. M.F.A.
No.5313/2014 is filed by the insurance company against
the judgment and award passed in MVC No.4633/2012.
Deceased Rajanna @ Fakeera was going along with
vegetable goods in Tata Ace bearing registration No.KA-
42-8085 on the left side of the vehicle. At that time,
unknown vehicle touched the Tata Ace. As a result,
Rajanna fell down and sustained head injuries and later
succumbed to the injuries. His wife and children filed claim
petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The
Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record
awarded total compensation of Rs.4,77,000/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till deposit.
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
HC-KAR
3. Aggrieved by the said order claimants preferred
appeal and mainly contended that Rajanna @ Fakira, aged
35 years working as a vegetable vendor was earning
Rs.3,300/- per month. But the Tribunal has taken only
Rs.3,000/- per month and thus requested for
enhancement of the compensation.
4. Against the same award Insurance company
also preferred appeal stating that if at all Rajanna was
travelling in the alleged goods auto, he was a gratuitous
passenger in the goods vehicle meant for carrying goods
only and the risk of passengers was not covered under the
insurance policy. Driver of the goods auto was not having
valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle has no
permit for carrying the passengers. Hence there is breach
of terms and conditions of the policy, and they have no
obligation to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. It is
further stated that it has seating capacity of only two and
it is a closed type of vehicle. It is further stated as there
were 13 passengers, there was no space left for carrying
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
HC-KAR
the goods or vegetables. In the FIR, mahazar and sketch,
there is no mention of vegetables. Ex.P1 and P2 are the
complaint and FIR in which it is stated that 13 persons
were travelling along with the vegetables excluding the
driver. The said goods auto is light goods transport motor
vehicle with unladen weight of 820 kgs and closed type of
vehicle and it is used only for carrying passengers and not
for transporting vegetable by the insured owner. The
owner has not acted and discharged his obligations as per
Section 134C of the MV Act. They have simply stated this
story that unknown vehicle dashed them and as they will
not get compensation under Section 166 of MV Act. Ex.R7
is the ration card in which his age is shown as 40 years as
on 06.01.2010 and the date of accident is 01.12.2011 and
thus he was aged 41 years 11 months. But the trial Court
wrongly took 35 years based on the post-mortem report
and the multiplier of 17 is taken instead of 14. Therefore
he requested to set aside the judgment and order of the
Tribunal.
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
HC-KAR
5. The manner of accident as per the petition is,
one Rajanna @ Fakira was going along with vegetable
goods in Tata Ace bearing registration No.KA-42-8085, on
the left side of the road, at that time one unknown vehicle
touched the Tata Ace. As a result, he fell down and
sustained grievous injuries.
6. Respondent No.1 is the Insurance company of
Tata Ace bearing No.KA-42-8085 and respondent No.2 is
the owner of the said vehicle. Respondent No.1 in his
written statement contented that the policy was in force as
on the date of accident. The driver of the goods auto was
not having valid and effective driving licence and he has
not reported about the accident to them immediately after
the accident and it amounts to breach of terms and
conditions of the policy. They also denied that Rajanna
was travelling in the vehicle along with vegetables and
requested the Court to dismiss the petition filed under
Section 163A of the MV Act.
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
HC-KAR
7. Respondent No.2/owner of the Tata Ace has not
filed any written statement. Ex.P1 is the copy of the
complaint given by one Umesh at 10.30 a.m. and the
accident occurred at about 08.30 a.m. on the same day.
So the complaint is given within two hours after the
accident. FIR/Ex.P2 is registered in Crime No.201/2011 for
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of IPC read
with 187 of the IMV Act. Ex.P8 is the report submitted by
the police after death of Rajanna and Section 304A of IPC
is included. Ex.P3 is the spot Panchanama along with the
sketch. Ex.P4/the IMV report of Tata Ace bearing
registration No.KA-42-8085 shows that the vehicle
damaged on the left side and Ex.P5 is the Inquest
Panchanama and no copy of the charge sheet is produced.
In Ex.P8/report police have not stated the number of the
unknown vehicle against whom charge sheet was filed by
them after the investigation. This clearly shows that no
charge sheet is filed against any one.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
HC-KAR
8. Umesh/complainant stated that he along with
Rajanna was going in auto along with vegetables. In
Ex.P7/copy of the ration card, the name of the deceased
was shown as Rajanna and his wife's name is shown as
Gowramma and thus there is no dispute regarding LRs of
Rajanna. In Ex.P7/ration card the age of Rajanna was
shown as 40 years. But the Tribunal erred in taking the
age as 35 years and wrongly applied the multiplier of 17.
9. The Tribunal relying on the judgments of this
Court and the Apex Court, held that as the petition is filed
under Section 163A of the MV Act and policy was in force
at the time of the accident. Hence respondent
No.1/Insurance company is statutorily liable to pay the
compensation and held that R1 and R2 are jointly liable to
pay the compensation and directed R1 to deposit the
amount.
10. Perusal of the crucial documents including the
complaint under Ex.P1 shows that accident occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tata Ace bearing
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
HC-KAR
No.KA- 42-8085. In Ex.P3, engine number is mentioned as
275IDI06JYY8H9936 and chassis number is mentioned as
MAT445056BVJ83796 and the vehicle number is shown as
KA-42-8103. Even in the inquest report under Ex.P5, the
number of the vehicle is shown as KA-42-8103 only. In
Ex.P6/PM report it is mentioned that auto passenger hit by
four wheeler at Ramanagar. The cause of the death is
shown as head injury caused due to cardio-respiratory
arrest. In Ex.P8 also the vehicle number is mentioned only
as KA-42-8103.
11. In the copy of the policy, they have given
Engine Number as 275IDI06JYYSII9936 and Chassis
number as MAT445056BVJ83796. There is variation in
engine number. In the claim petition, there is alteration in
the number of the vehicle, whitener was applied and 8085
was inserted. Except in IMV report, in all other documents,
the vehicle number was given as only KA-42-8103. But the
claim petition is filed against Tata Ace No.KA-42-8085.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
HC-KAR
12. In this case, though complaint is given,
Investigating Officer has not investigated the case and
filed charge sheet. Even the charge sheet is not filed
against the vehicle number KA-42-8085. It was only
examined by the motor vehicle inspector and he issued
IMV report in which the number of the vehicle is shown as
KA-42-8085. Respondent has not raised any objection
regarding the variation in the vehicle number and simply
stated that it is a goods auto; the deceased was an
unauthorised passenger in the said auto; he was not
travelling with vegetables, moreover he was travelling
along with 13 passengers, as such the question of carrying
vegetables does not arise and it is a closed auto and it is
meant only for carrying passengers and not goods.
13. The claimants stated that the deceased was
carrying vegetables and even PW2 stated that they were
travelling in the auto carrying vegetables. Except their oral
statement, no other evidence is placed before this Court to
prove that he was travelling with goods/vegetables.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
HC-KAR
Nature of vegetables and quantity of vegetables carried by
them is not mentioned. Therefore the contention of the
Insurance company that he is gratuitous passenger is
accepted and it is in clear violation of terms and conditions
of the policy. As such Insurance company is not liable to
pay the compensation.
14. In a citation in (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
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
HC-KAR
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
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
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16350
HC-KAR
abused. Therefore, it is only the 1st
respondent/owner who is liable to
pay the aforesaid amount. Ordered
accordingly.
15. 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. Even otherwise as per the complaint the
vehicle involved in accident is KA-42-8103. But the
petition itself is filed against KA-42-8085. As such the
petition itself is not maintainable and the judgment and
order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
16. As a result, MFA No.5313/2014 filed by the
Insurance company is allowed and MFA No.6085/2014
filed by the claimants is dismissed.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
AKC
CT:NR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3
