SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 442104

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
D K SINGH AND TARA VITASTA GANJU
THE MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
SMT RATHNA S M – Respondent
MFA 382/2021



HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2021 (MV-D)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 382 OF 2021 (MV-I)

IN MFA No. 325/2021:

BETWEEN:

1. THE MANAGER

CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD

DESAI CROSS, HUBLI

NOW REP BY ITS

THE MANAGER

CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD UNIT NO. 4, GOLDEN GEIGHTS

6TH FLOOR, 59TH C CROSS

INDUSTRIAL SUBURAB

4TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR

BANGALURU-560010

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. RATHNA S M

W/O LATE SRI MURIGESH R O NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

2. HARSHINI

HC-KAR D/O LATE MURIGESH R O NOW AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RATHNA S.M

3. SHASHIKALA W/O RUDRAPPA ONKARI NOW AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

4. RUDRAPPA ONKARI S/O MURUGEPPA ONKARI NOW AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO. 1852/C1 ASHIRVADA, 2ND CROSS, SS LAYOUT DAVANAGERE-577004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN DODDABASAVARAJAPPA RYAKHA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4;

VIDE ORDER DATED:15.07.2025, NOTICE TO R-5 & R-6 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.649/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND V MACT, DAVANGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.82,62,787/- WITH INTEREST AT 8 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF CLAIM PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

IN MFA NO. 382/2021:

BETWEEN:

1. THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD DESAI CROSS, HUBLI NOW REP BY ITS THE MANAGER, HC-KAR CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD UNIT NO.4, GOLDEN HEIGHTS

6TH FLOOR, 59TH C CROSS INDUSTRIAL SUBURAB

4TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-10 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. RATHNA S M W/O LATE SRI MURIGESH R O NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 1852/C1 ASHIRVADA, 2ND CROSS, SS LAYOUT DAVANAGERE-577004

2. SHAHULHAMMED K S/O KADE MOHIDEEN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT 15TH STREET, PADUKKOTTAI TAMILNADU-622001

3. CHAKRA POLYMERS NO 15, NEW TOWN SOUTH STREET MALAIKOVIL, THIRUVERAMBUR S.O ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA DODDABASARAJAPPA RYAKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

VIDE ORDER DATED:15.07.2025, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH;

R-3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 11.02.2020, PASSED IN MVC NO.650/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND V-ADDITIONAL MACT, DAVANGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,07,814/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF THE CLAIM PETITION HC-KAR TILL ITS REALIZATION.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant.

2. These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 11.12.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC Nos.649/2017 and 650/2017 instituted by the respondents-claimants.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case as set out in the claim petition are that, on 20.02.2017 Murigesh Rudrappa Onkari (the deceased), his wife and daughter while proceeding towards Kottur of Bellary District via Sira on NH-4 in a car bearing HC-KAR No.KA 02-ME-6257 met with an accident near Green lan hotel, Pattrehalli village of Hiriyur Taluk at about 8:00 a.m. with lorry bearing No.TN-45-AV-2264. Both the vehicles were proceeding on the same direction. It is not in dispute that the car driven by the deceased hit the lorry from behind. As a result, the deaceased died and his wife sustained injuries.

5. Mr. B. Pradeep, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has confined the argument only in respect of contributory negligence of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top