Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
K. Gangadhara S/o K. Kotreshi – Respondent
MFA NO. 101645 OF 2016, 101646 OF 2016
Decided On : 11-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI. S. S KOLIWAD
For the Respondent: SRI. VEERESH H.M.
Insurance Companies remain liable in compensation claims unless they successfully challenge the relevant charge sheets, especially in cases of negligence. A failure to present evidence undermines their defense.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Appeals filed by the Insurance Company contesting the judgment awarding compensation for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident involving a goods van - The accident was determined to be due to rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal awarded compensation amounting to Rs.2,35,907/- and Rs.7,08,000/- with interest, holding the driver, owner, and Insurance Company liable. (Paras 8, 16)
(B) Liability - Insurance Companies cannot be absolved of liability if they do not challenge the charge sheet filed against the driver. The court upheld the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing the lack of evidence presented by the Insurance Company to dispute the claim. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were involved in a motorcycle accident on 22.05.2013, resulting in grievous injuries and the death of one individual. The offending vehicle was determined to have been driven negligently and at high speed.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal awarded compensation and held the Insurance Company liable, which was upheld by the High Court.
Issues: The legal issue of liability for the accident and the adequacy of evidence presented by the Insurance Company was central to the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the collision was due to negligent driving. The plea of the Insurance Company was rejected as they failed to disprove the charge sheet.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and consequences (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. insurance company's defense claims (Para 5) |
| 3. analysis of evidence supporting claims (Para 8 , 12 , 16) |
| 4. findings on rash and negligent driving (Para 11 , 15) |
| 5. court's order and dismissal of appeals (Para 17) |
ORAL JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
These Appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 10.12.2015 passed in MVC Nos.33 and 34 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, cum Member VI-MACT, Kudligi.
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:
3. On 22.05.2013, at about 8.30 p.m., the petitioner and his friend were travelling in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-35/H-6379 from Toolahalli to Sokke for painting work. When they came near the Toolahalli Sokke road, at about 9.00 p.m, the driver of the Maxi Pickup Goods Van bearing Reg.No.KA-35/A-1460, drove the same at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioners sustained the grievous injuries and his friend (i.e, the deceased in MVC No. 34/2014) succumbed to the injuries at spot, and they were shifted to the hospital. The petitioner has spent a huge amount towards the medical and other expenses. Hence, they filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.
4. The driver and the owner of the offending vehicle remained unrepresented, and have been placed ex-parte.
5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that two vehicles are involved in the accident, and owner and Insurance Company of the motorcycle were not made as parties to the claim petition, and they are the necessary parties. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. The rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the Maxi cab did not possess a valid and effective driving license. There is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the Insurance Company.
6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.
7. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, examined the petitioner in MVC NO. 33/2014 P.W.1 and petitioner No. 1 in MVC NO. 34/2014 as PW- 2, examined the doctor as P.W.3, and marked 21 documents as Exs.P1 to P21. Conversely, on the other hand, an official of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1, and marked 1 document as Ex.R1.
8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part vide judgment dated 10.12.2015 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,35,907/- to the petitioner in MVC No.33/2014 and Rs.7,08,000/- in MVC No.34/2014 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The owner, driver and insurance company were held liable jointly and severally and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners in both the claim petitions.
9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.33 and 34 of 2014, filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioners.
11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that after the accident, the petitioners were shifted to the Government Hospital, Jagalur, and they have stated about the occurrence of the accident before the Doctor. As per the Ex.P7-wound certificate, it discloses that on 22.05.2013 at 8.30 p.m. near Toolahalli, the petitioners were hit the Bolero and as per Ex.P-21-entire case sheet issued by Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, its history discloses that the injured was a pillion rider on a bike hit by Bolaro vehicle a
