Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1078
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
P Sree Sudha, J.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Naveen Kumar M @ Naveen And Ors. - Respondents
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4489 of 2019 (Mv-I), Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4487 of 2019 (Mv-I), Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4488 of 2019 (Mv-I), Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4490 of 2019 (Mv-I)
Decided On : 10-09-2025
For the Appellant :Sri. Ashok N Patil., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. H.N. Venkatesh., Advocate, Sri. Chandrashekara N, Advocate, Sri. V.C. Sudeep, Advocate, Sri Mahantesh S Hosmath, Advocate
The court clarified that liability cannot be imposed on an insurance company absent clear evidence of joint negligence between multiple drivers.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Common judgment and award dated 19.01.2019 by MACT - Insurance company appeals against liability determination - Court holds no composite negligence exists - Liability fixed unjustly against the insurance company for a collision involving two vehicles. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 9)
(B) Negligence - The court ruled that the charge sheet indicates the driver of one vehicle is solely responsible and established that composite negligence does not apply in this case. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The incident occurred on 28.11.2016 involving two vehicles, resulting in injuries to the claimants. The Tribunal apportioned liability equally between both vehicles, leading to the insurance company's appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court exonerated the insurance company from liability, allowing the claimants to recover compensation from the actual tortfeasor.
Issues: The primary issues were the determination of negligence and the proper allocation of liability between the involved vehicles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that sole negligence was attributed to one driver based on the charge sheet, deeming it unreasonable to impose liability on the insurance company of the other vehicle.
Result: All appeals are allowed; claimants may recover from the driver of the other vehicle.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the accident and liability determination. (Para 5) |
| 2. insurance company's argument against liability. (Para 6) |
| 3. consideration of the fir and negligence. (Para 7) |
| 4. legal principles regarding joint tortfeasors. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. final order and conclusions on appeals. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
P Sree Sudha, J.
The learned counsel of the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and the learned counsel for claimants are present.
2. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are absent.
3. Heard the arguments of both sides.
4. These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company against the common judgment and award dated 19.01.2019 by the XXII ASCJ & XX ACMM & Member, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC Nos. 1374/2017, 1375/2017, 1376/2017 and 1377/2017.
5. The facts of the cases are that, on 28.11.2016, while petitioners were proceeding in a car bearing No.KA-40-A-3160, the driver of the said car driven it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the car bearing No.AP-26-BC-0300 which was coming from opposite direction. In view of the same, both the vehicles colluded with each other and the claimants sustained severe injuries. So considering the said fact, the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the car bearing No.AP-26-BC-0300. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the owner and driver, of the car bearing No.AP-26-BC-0300. The Tribunal considering the fact that there was collusion of both the vehicles, fixed up the liability at the rate of 50% on each of the vehicles and directed all respondent Nos.1 to 4 to deposit the amount. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have to deposit 50% of the compensation and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have to deposit 50% of the compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2-insurance company has preferred all these appeals.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company, in all the appeals, mainly contended that there is no negligence of the driver of the car bearing No.KA-40-A-3160, and the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the car bearing No.AP-26-BC-0300 and thus, requested to exonerate them from paying the compensation. It is further stated that the Tribunal has not properly considered FIR, charge sheet and other documents. One Shaikh Akbar Ali gave complaint before the police stating that the driver of the car bearing No.AP-26-BC-0300 was solely responsible and as such, the charge sheet is also filed against the owner and driver of the said car. The owner and insurer of the car bearing No.KA- 40-A-3160 are not necessary parties and thus, requested to set aside the impugned judgment to an extent of their liability.
7. As per Exhibit P.2-complaint, it is seen that immediately after the accident, the said complaint was given by S Akbar Ali, s/o. Anwar Basha, on 31.11.2016 stating that he was working in Soudi Arabia. About a year back, he came to Vayalpadu from Soudi Arabia. While he was returning to Saudi Arabia on 28.11.2016, he left Vayalpadi in a car bearing No.AP-26-BC-0300. He was dropped in the airport and on the next day morning, he came to know that the car driver S. Abdul Khayyam was driving the said car bearing No.AP-26-BC- 0300 with high speed, as there was snow in front of the car, he had not noticed the opposite car No.KA-40-A-3160 and dashed the same. As a result, both the cars colluded with each other and the inmates in both the cars sustained injuries, as such the complainant requested to take action against driver of car bearing No.AP-26-BC-0300. It was registered as Crime No. 162 of 2016 and the charge sheet is also filed against the owner and driver of the car bearing No.AP-26-BC-0300. The Tribunal considered the fact that there was collusion of both the vehicles and fixed up the liability against respondent Nos.1 and 2 also without any basis. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to exonerate the liability against the appellant herein (respondent No.2 before the Tribunal).
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-
