Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Chinnappa Shivappa Lamani on 30 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9433
MFA No. 24346 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24346 OF 2013 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGER,
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
REGD. OFFICE 201, CRISTAL PLAZA BUILDING,
INFINITY MAAL, NEW LINK ROAD,
ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI-400050.
NOW REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C KOLLOORI, ADV)
AND:
1. SRI. CHINNAPPA SHIVAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: TUMARIKOPPA, TQ: BYADAGI,
DIST: HAVERI.
2. SRI. KARANI MOSIN S/O KARANI AMIRSAHEB,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE,
R/O: HOUSE NO. C51, NEAR URDU
SCHOOL, KOURAWI, POST: KANDLUR
TQ: KUNDAPUR, DIST: UDUPI.
...RESPONDENTS
Digitally
signed by
VINAYAKA
VINAYAKA B V (NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE SERVED)
BV Date:
2025.08.11
16:07:30
+0530 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07-08-2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.338/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER,
ADDL. MACT, BYADAGI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
Rs.3,09,200/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9433
MFA No. 24346 of 2013
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the insurance-company of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award dated 07.08.2013 passed in MVC No.338 of 2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Byadagi.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Tribunal. The appellant was Respondent No.2 (Insurance Company); Respondent No.1 was the petitioner/claimant and Respondent No.22 was Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
4. The claimant filed a claim petition contending that, on 06.10.2010 at about 7.15 am near Musba Cross in Bhatkal, when the deceased i.e., Chandrappa -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9433 MFA No. 24346 of 2013 HC-KAR Chinnappa Lamani was working as Police Constable at Bhatkal Town Police Station as he was engaged in his duties near Sarapana Katta check-post along with other officials, at that time, while he was proceeding on his motorcycle, the driver of Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No.KA.20-A.4806 drove it in rash, speed and negligent manner to endanger human life, and hit to the motorcycle of the deceased, from the back-side. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. It is contended that, before the accident the deceased used to earn Rs.8,764/- per month and was the sole bread earner of the family.
5. The claimant, being the father of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a compensation of Rs.28/- Lakhs, and accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9433 MFA No. 24346 of 2013 HC-KAR
6. The owner of the offending vehicle contended that the liability is to the insurer of the offending vehicle, on the grounds that, as of the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving license, and the policy of insurance was in force. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the vehicle in question.
7. The insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the coverage of the policy to the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. It is contended that its liability is subject to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and also contended that the vehicle insured was used for murder of the deceased and, accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against it.
8. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9433 MFA No. 24346 of 2013 HC-KAR
9. The claimant, to prove the claim petition averments, examined himself as PW-1, and marked 11 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. In rebuttal, the official of the insurance company was examined as RW-1 and marked two documents as Exs.R-1 and R-2.
10. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of ₹3,09,200/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation of the amount. The Tribunal also held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount, and also directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest, within one month from the date of award.
11. The insurance company, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9433 MFA No. 24346 of 2013 HC-KAR
12. The learned counsel for insurance company submits that the First Information Report (FIR) was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 302, 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No.45 of 1860) ["IPC", for short]. The intention of the driver of the offending vehicle was to commit the murder of the deceased. Hence, he submits that the Tribunal, without considering the contents of the FIR has saddled the liability on the insurance company. Therefore, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal, and dismiss the claim petition against the insurer i.e., Respondent No.2.
13. A notice was issued to the respondents in this appeal and they remained unrepresented.
14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the insurance company.
15. The point that arises for my consideration in this appeal is only regarding the liability. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9433 MFA No. 24346 of 2013 HC-KAR
16. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident involving the vehicle in question, and the death of one Chandrappa. The only contention raised by the insurance company is that the police initially registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 302, 353 read with Section 34 of IPC, and under Sections 5, 8, 9 and 11 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
17. However, after investigation, the Police have filed the charge-sheet as per Ex.P.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and Section 304A of IPC, read with Sections 134-A and 134-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Sections 5, 8, 9 and 11 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Thus, the offence -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9433 MFA No. 24346 of 2013 HC-KAR punishable under Section 302 of IPC was deleted in the charge-sheet.
18. The insurance company has taken a specific defence that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, on the contrary, the offending vehicle was used for the murder of the deceased.
19. The said contention cannot be accepted in view of the charge-sheet filed by the police under the aforesaid provisions, which is marked as Ex.P-3.
20. The Tribunal considering the documents on record, particularly Ex.P-3, has rightly held that the deceased died in a road traffic accident, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. As such, the saddling of liability on the insurer i.e. Respondent No.2 of the offending vehicle by the Tribunal cannot be found -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9433 MFA No. 24346 of 2013 HC-KAR fault with. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
21. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 07.08.2013 passed in M.V.C No.338 of 2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Byadagi, is hereby confirmed.
(iii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8