Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 932
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
D K Singh, Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.
The Claim Manager, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Sri Narayanaswamy And Ors. - Respondents
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3413 of 2015 (MV-D) MFA Crob. No.131 of 2017 (MV-D)
Decided On : 16-09-2025
For the Appellant :Sri O. Mahesh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri K.R. Lingaraju, Advocate
The court reiterated that non-compliance with notice provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act does not invalidate claims for compensation, emphasizing fair and just compensation for accident victims.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 134(c) and 158(5) - Appeal against compensation awarded - The Insurance Company challenged the award citing non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding notice and claim, asserting the vehicle was implanted for compensation - Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.22,69,320/- with interest at 6% per annum. (Paras 3, 22, and 12)
(B) Claimants contended that awarded medical expenses were insufficient compared to incurred expenses - Tribunal's assessment of loss of dependency and future prospects was upheld, with an adjustment to include loss of consortium and funeral expenses. (Paras 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was involved in a fatal accident on 19.02.2011 while riding a motorcycle, leading to his demise, causing the family to file a claim petition under the Act.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's awarded amount was revised to Rs.16,87,625/- due to established claims and compensation justifications.
Issues: The issues revolved around the Insurance Company’s claim of improper notice and vehicle involvement and the fairness of the awarded compensation amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the provisions regarding notice do not bar the claim if compliance is achieved, and compensation was re-calibrated based on statutory guidelines, emphasizing comprehensive compensation principles for accident victims.
Result: Appeals allowed-in-part, with the compensation modified to Rs.16,87,625/-.
JUDGMENT :
VENKATESH NAIK T., J.
Heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company and learned counsel for the Cross objectors/claimants.
As these appeals are arising out of common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, we are disposing the appeals by this common judgment.
MFA No.3413 of 2015 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Channarayapatna in MVC No.113 of 2011 dated 28.01.2015, whereas, MFA Crob.131 of 2017 is filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, whereby, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.22,69,320/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the claimants' case before the Tribunal is as under:-
On 19.02.2011 at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased by name C.N. Lokesh was proceeding on his Hero Honda splendor motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 13-A-6526 on NH-48, B.M. Road, Near Gowrommanahalli weigh bridge, Channarayapatna Town, at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA 13 A-7112 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Channarayapatna for treatment and SSM Hospital, Hassan and later, on the way to Mysore, injured Lokesh succumbed to the injuries on 20.02.2011. Hence, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act. Claimant No.1 is the mother, claimant No.2 is the father, claimant No.3 and 4 are unmarried sister and brother respectively.
4. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in-part. Hence, being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the Insurance company and Cross objectors/claimants are before this Court.
5. Sri O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company in MFA No.3413/2015 vehemently contended that the insured vehicle has been implicated through police Investigation in favour of the claimants, which was evident from the fact that there was non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 134(c) of MV Act either by insured or of Section 158(5) of MV Act, both by insured and concerned Investigating Police Officer and the Insurer was kept in darkness in respect of alleged accident with ulterior motive and with a fear that such concoction would be exposed.
6. Secondly, he contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the purpose of provisions of Section 134(c) and Section 158(5) of MV Act is to intimate the concerned Insurer. Both the insured and police are required to take necessary steps and necessary action at their end to settle the claim, if any, arising out of the involvement of the insured vehicle at the earliest. This requirement, if established, has not been met in the instant case.
7. Thirdly, he contended that the claim petition was not maintainable either in law or on facts and was bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties, i.e., the driver and owner of the vehicle were not made as parties to the claim petition.
8. Fourthly, he contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the aspect that it was statutory obligation under Rule 235 of KARNATAKA MOTOR VEHICLES RULES , 1989 to send notices to owner and driver of the vehicle, if the vehicle is involved in the accident.
9. Fifthly, he contended that the material available on record clearly establishes that the insured vehicle was implicated with the cooperation of so-called insured-first respondent, who remained ex- parte after service of notice of the claim in question and the so-called driver of offending vehicle one Prabhakara was not under employment of the insured.
10. Lastly, he contended that the Tribunal has grant
