The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13685 MFA No. 8926 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8926 OF 2013(MV) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, HUNSUR - 571 105. ISSUING OFFICE - 070602 OFFICE, #1022, ZADI COMPLEX, BAZAR ROAD, HUNSUR. THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 027. BY IT’S MANAGER. (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANJU, S/O. NANJUNDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 1ST BLOCK, MARUTHI EXTENSION, MULLUSOGE VILLAGE, KUSHALNAGAR HOBALI, SOMAWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236. 2. GANESH, S/O. H.S. MANJUNATH,
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13685 MFA No. 8926 of 2013 AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT. MANCHADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, PERIYAPATTANA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. BHARATHI M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH. R BHAGATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.1.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.51/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MADIKERI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,08,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% 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 SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.51/2010 dated 24.01.2012 by the Senior Civil judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madikere, the Insurance Company is before this Court. The claim petition is filed under section 163A read with section 166 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor vehicle accident. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13685 MFA No. 8926 of 2013 2. The facts of the case are that on 17.05.2007 at about 7.30 p.m., when the claimant was travelling in an auto rickshaw driven by respondent No.1 in a high speed and rash and negligent manner, due to that he lost control and the said auto toppled by the side of the road, due to that the claimant suffered fracture of right knee, left hand and heel and he lost his conscious. Thereafter, he was taken to the Government Hospital and he has undergone treatment. The Tribunal had framed two issues, they are as follows: i. Whether the claimant proves that, on 17.05.2008 at about 7.30 p.m., respondent No.1 being the driver of the Bajaj Auto rickshaw in which the claimant was traveling, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to that auto rickshaw capsized and accident caused and he sustained injuries? ii. Whether the claimant is entitled for the compensation? If so, for how much? In respect of the first issue, the Tribunal observed that on going through the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence produced by the claimant, it is very clear that in relation to this accident no complaint has been registered by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13685 MFA No. 8926 of 2013 the jurisdictional police station, but the claimant had lodged private complaint on 04.03.2008 and when the Trial Court referred the case to the police station, on that basis, a crime has been registered and thereafter, B report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer and the claimant has challenged the said B report by filing objections and after recording the sworn statement of the claimant cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under section 279 and 338 of IPC against respondent No.1 and summons have been served on the respondent, who appeared before the Court and obtained bail, subsequently the claimant did not appear before the Court. Hence, the criminal case filed by the claimant was dismissed. The Tribunal had also observed that the Tribunal has to see whether the accident caused due to negligence of the petitioner or due to respondent No.1. The finding of the Tribunal is that the claimant failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and he had driven the said auto rickshaw at the time of the accident, on the other hand, it is proved that the claimant himself drove the said vehicle and caused the accident. After that suddenly the Court jumps to the finding that this petition has been filed under Section 163A of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13685 MFA No. 8926 of 2013 the IMV Act, 1988 and accordingly, granted the compensation of an amount of Rs.3,08,800/-. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company submits that the claimant had come to the Court with suppression of facts and also played fraud on the Court. According to the claimant, he is earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. In that case, the annual income of the claimant is an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. Even on that count, he cannot maintain a petition under Section 163A of IMV Act, 1988. Further, if it has to be considered under Section 166 of IMV Act, 1988, there has to be a finding and the claimant has to establish that because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle the accident had taken place. In that, already Tribunal has given a finding that the claimant could not prove the rash and negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. In view of the same, the Tribunal went wrong in granting compensation to the claimant and the same needs to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing to the respondent/ claimant submits that just because it is the case of the claimant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13685 MFA No. 8926 of 2013 that he is earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month, the Tribunal should not consider the same and there is no evidence on the record. It is her submission that unless there is evidence on the record to show that his income is Rs.20,000/- per month it cannot be considered. Then with regard to the issue whether the petition under Section 163A of IMV, 1988 is maintainable or not? It is submitted that the Tribunal had rightly considered all the issues and granted the compensation. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered impugned order. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The petition is filed under Section 163A read with Section 166 of the IMV Act, 1988. If the same has to be treated under Section 163A of the IMV Act, 1988, the income of the claimant shall not be above Rs.40,000/- per annum and once it is the case of the claimant that he is earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month, the argument of the learned counsel that there is no material on record cannot be the ground and even the claimant cannot be permitted to amend the pleadings or restrict the claim. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni And Ors Vs. United India Insurance Co. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13685 MFA No. 8926 of 2013 Ltd., Baroda1 even the claimant cannot restrict the claim and the Tribunal went wrong in granting the compensation under Section 163A of the IMV Act, 1988 and the claimant is not entitled for compensation. As rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company that under Section 166 of IMV Act, 1988 also the claimant is not entitled for compensation as already the Tribunal has given a finding that the rash and negligence is in fact on the part of the claimant and the claimant has failed to prove that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and that was not questioned by the claimant. 6. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company is allowed by setting aside the award passed in M.V.C.No.51/2010 dated 24.01.2012 by the Senior Civil judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madikere. i. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal and the appellant/insurance company is at liberty to withdraw the same. ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. 1 AIR 2004 SC 2107 * Retyped and replace page No.7 vide chamber order dated: 25.07.2025. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13685 MFA No. 8926 of 2013 iii. No costs. iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3