[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Kushalamma on 23 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16309
M.F.A. No.4034/2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4034/2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,
NO.64/3, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD
B.J. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE 577 002
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI. K.S. LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADV., FOR
by ARSHIFA SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADV.,)
BAHAR KHANAM
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. KUSHALAMMA
W/O NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
2. H.N. RAKESH
S/O H.K. NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
3. H.N. SAHANA
D/O H.K. NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
4. CHANNABASAMMA
W/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT ALAGHATTA VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTIRCT.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16309
M.F.A. No.4034/2018
HC-KAR
5. K.M. GANGADHARAPPA
S/O KENCHAPPA, MAJOR
R/AT KUDINEERUKATTE VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAJWAL M.M. ADV., FOR
SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADV., FOR R5
R1 TO R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1374/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT-5, CHITRADURGA,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,17,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE
DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the judgment and award dated 20.01.2018
passed in MVC.No.1374/2016 by the II Additional Senior
Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Chitradurga, (for short
'the Tribunal').
NC: 2026:KHC:16309
HC-KAR
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is
taken up for final disposal.
3. Sri.K.S.Lakshminarasappa, learned counsel for
Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal
has committed a grave error in recording the finding that
the driver of the tractor was solely responsible for the
accident and in fastening the entire liability on the
appellant/Insurance Company by ignoring the fact that the
claimants failed to establish factum of negligence on the
part of the driver of the tractor by adducing cogent
evidence. It is submitted that nothing has prevented the
claimants to examine one Sri.Muniswamy, who was
claiming to be the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal
also failed to consider Ex.R5, sketch which indicates that
the width of the road was 14 feet and that the driver of
the tractor, drove the tractor on the left side leaving 4 feet
of road towards his right, and the rider of the motorcycle
NC: 2026:KHC:16309
HC-KAR
came in the opposite direction, dashed against the tractor,
which resulted in accident; in effect the accident has
occurred in the middle of the road. Hence, 50% of the
liability is required to be saddled on the rider of the
motorcycle. It is further submitted that the police neither
seized nor conducted inspection of the said tractor and the
IMV report at Ex.P7 is only of the two-wheeler. All these
facts clearly demonstrate that the claimants failed to
establish negligence on the part of the driver of the
tractor, which has not been appreciated by the Tribunal in
its proper perspective, therefore, he seeks to record the
finding that the rider of the motorcycle has also
contributed to the accident to the extent of 50% by
modifying the judgment. It is also submitted that the
Tribunal has erred in awarding exorbitant interest at the
rate of 9% per annum without assigning any special
reasons. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.Prajwal M.M., learned counsel for
Sri.R.Shashidhara, learned counsel for respondent No.5
NC: 2026:KHC:16309
HC-KAR
supports the impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal and submits that after investigation, the
jurisdictional police have filed a charge sheet against the
driver of the tractor and based on such evidence, the
Tribunal has rightly recorded its finding on negligence and
liability, which does not call for any interference. Hence,
he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments on both the sides
and meticulously perused the material available on record
including the Tribunal record.
6. The material on record indicates that the
accident in question occurred on 07.03.2015. The
claimants are the wife, children and mother of the
deceased, who was a pillion rider on the motorcycle. It is
not in dispute that the accident was reported to the
jurisdictional police, who after investigation filed a charge
sheet against the driver of the tractor involved in the
accident. In order to substantiate the aspect of negligence,
NC: 2026:KHC:16309
HC-KAR
claimant No.1 examined herself as PW1 and got marked
Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-Complaint, Ex.P3-Inquest report, Ex.P4-
Statement of claimant No.2, Ex.P5-Post mortem report,
Ex.P6-Charge sheet, Ex.P7-IMV report, Ex.P8 to P112-104
medical bills, Ex.P113 to 135-Prescriptions and Ex.P136-IP
charge details. On the other hand, the respondent did not
adduce any oral evidence but, with consent, got marked
Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.
7. Ex.R5 is the sketch produced on record. A
perusal of the sketch indicates that the accident occurred
in the middle of the road, the width of the road is shown
as 14 feet. In my considered view, based on the Ex.R5, it
would be difficult to record any finding with regard to the
aspect of negligence. Admittedly, the initial burden of
proving the negligence and liability lies on the claimants.
In the present case, claimant No.1, examined as PW1, has
deposed before the Tribunal that one Sri.Muniswamy was
riding the motorcycle and that the accident occurred due
to the negligence of the driver of the tractor. In order to
NC: 2026:KHC:16309
HC-KAR
prove the said assertion, the charge sheet material was
placed before the Tribunal which clearly demonstrates that
the jurisdictional police have filed a charge sheet against
the driver of the tractor. Significantly, no evidence was
adduced by the appellant/Insurance Company to disprove
the factual assertion of claimant No.1 and charge sheet
material. In the absence of any contrary evidence before
the Tribunal and this Court, I am of the considered view
that the Tribunal taking note of the charge sheet material,
Ex.R5 and other evidence on record has rightly held that
the driver of the tractor was negligent and caused the
accident in question. I do not find any error in the said
finding calling for interference in this appeal.
8. Insofar as the award of interest by the Tribunal
is concerned, the Tribunal, without assigning any specific
reasons, has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit on
the total compensation amount. Taking into consideration
that the accident is of the year 2015 and having regard to
NC: 2026:KHC:16309
HC-KAR
the prevailing rate of interest offered by nationalized
banks on term deposits, I am of the considered view that
the interest and justice would be met if the rate of interest
is awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization of the amount. Accordingly, the
appeal is allowed-in-part to the aforesaid extent. In all
other respects, the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is upheld. The Registry is directed to transmit the
records to the Tribunal forthwith and draw modified decree
accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
