Karnataka High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., ... vs Parvathi W/O Basavaraj on 7 January, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:203
MFA No. 23973 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 23974 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23973 OF 2012 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23974 OF 2012
IN M.F.A. NO.23973 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BELLARY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,
LEGAL CLAIMS, CTS, 472-474, V A KALBURGI SQUARE,
DESAI CIRCLE, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PARVATHI W/O. BASAVARAJ,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
2. PRADEEPKUMAR S/O. BASAVARAJ,
AGE: 2 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA 3. TARADEVI D/O. SHIVAPPA,
KALMATH
Location: HIGH AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
4. GANGAMMA D/O. SHIVAPPA,
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
5. SHIVAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA
AGE: 51 YEARS,
6. HAMPAMMA W/O. SHIVAPPA,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
RESPONDENT NO.2 BEING MINOR
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:203
MFA No. 23973 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 23974 of 2012
RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 BEING
MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
GUARDIAN FATHER RESPONDENT NO.5.
ALL ARE R/O: THIMMALAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST: BELLARY.
7. SRI B. RAJASHEKAR S/O. B. BHEEMAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: W.NO .26, JAGRATHI NAGAR, BELLARY,
NOW RESIDENT OF NEAR JANDAKATTE,
HIREJANTKAL VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 TO R7 ARE SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04-06-2012, PASSED BY THE
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BELLARY IN MVC
NO.1370/2011 ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND AMONG OTHER
GROUNDS AND ETC.,
IN M.F.A. NO.23974 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.40, 1ST FLOOR, SLV TOWER,
PARVATHI NAGAR,
MAIN ROAD, BELLARY.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,
LEGAL CLAIMS, CTS, 472-474,
V A KALBURGI SQUARE,
DESAI CIRCLE,
DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. YALLAMMA W/O. ERANNA,
AGE: 19 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:203
MFA No. 23973 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 23974 of 2012
2. RENUKAMMA D/O. HULAGAPPA,
AGE: 17 YEARS,
OCC: NILL,
3. HULAGAPPA S/O. HALLAPPA,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: NILL,
4. GANGAMMA W/O. HULAGAPPA
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: NILL,
RESPONDENT NO.2 BEING MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL
GUARDIAN FATHER RESPONDENT NO.3.
ALL ARE R/O: THIMMALAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST: BELLARY.
5. SRI B. RAJASHEKAR
S/O. B. BHEEMAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NILL,
R/O: W.NO.26,
JAGRATHI NAGAR, BELLARY,
NOW RESIDENT OF NEAR JANDAKATTE,
HIREJANTKAL VILLAGE,
TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 TO R5 ARE SERVICE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SCTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 04-06-2012, PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII AT BELLARY IN MVC NO.1371/2011 ON THE
FOLLOWING FACTS AND AMONG OTHER GROUNDS AND ETC.,
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:203
MFA No. 23973 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 23974 of 2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) MFA Nos.23973 and 23974 of 2012 are filed by the appellant/insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 04.06.2012 passed in MVC Nos.1370 and 1371 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal XII, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), questioning the liability fastened on it and also apportionment of rashness and negligence at 75% on part of the driver of the lorry.
2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed on record. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:203 MFA No. 23973 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23974 of 2012
4. It is the case of the claimant that the rider and pillion rider (the deceased herein) were travelling on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-34/E-8692 on 07.11.2011 at about 10.30 p.m. and dashed into the hind portion of the stationed lorry, which was parked on the road due to a breakdown. Due to the said impact, both the rider and pillion rider have died on spot. The Tribunal, after assessing the evidence on record, held that the driver of the lorry was attributed 75% of rashness and negligence, while the rider of the motorcycle was attributed 25% of rashness and negligence in relation to the accident. It was observed by the Tribunal that the driver of lorry had not put any signal or indicators to indicate that the lorry was stationed on the road. Since the accident occurred at about 10.30 p.m., some indicators or signals ought to have been put by the driver of the lorry, but did not do so; therefore, this amounts to negligence on the -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:203 MFA No. 23973 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23974 of 2012 part of the driver of the lorry. At the same time, both deceased were riding on the motorcycle and they could have taken some precautions while riding the motorcycle. The huge impact between the lorry and motorcycle as discussed above, also goes to prove that the rider of the motorcycle was also negligent to some extent. With these observations, after evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the rashness and negligence aspect, holding that the driver of lorry was attributed 75% of rashness and negligence, while the rider of the motorcycle was attributed 25% of rashness and negligence in relation to the accident.
5. Though the deceased was pillion rider, he could have very well cautioned the rider of the motorcycle to drive the motorcycle slowly. Therefore, on this aspect, upon considering and appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal has correctly -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:203 MFA No. 23973 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23974 of 2012 assessed the evidence on record, holding that the driver of the lorry was attributed 75% of rashness and negligence and the rider of the motorcycle was attributed 25% of rashness and negligence in relation to the accident. This finding shall not be interfered with by this Court, as there is no cause for any interference in the appreciation of evidence made by the Tribunal.
6. The other contention taken by the insurance company is that there is no permit for the lorry and the driver of the lorry was not holding driving licence to drive the lorry. However, in this aspect, when such a contention was taken by the insurance company, it was incumbent upon them to lead evidence. Since evidence was not led on this aspect, therefore, the tribunal is correct in holding that the insurance company is liable to make payment and to pay compensation. Therefore, both the appeals are found -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:203 MFA No. 23973 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23974 of 2012 to be devoid of merits. Hence, they are liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. MFA Nos.23973 and 23974 of 2012 are dismissed.
ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 04.06.2012 passed in MVC Nos.1370 and 1371 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Bellary, are hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to costs.
iv. Draw award accordingly.
v. The amount in deposit made by the
insurance company shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 48