- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12373 WP No. 6378 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6378 OF 2025 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE AT NO. 21/15, THE LANDMARK, 4TH FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, NEAR TRINITY METRO, BENGALURU - 560 042. COMPANY REGISTER RULE 27 OF THE COMPANIES RULES 2014. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VELICHETI RADHAKRISHNA, S/O LATE VELICHETI SURAYANYANA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 2. SMT. VELICHETI MADHAVI, W/O VELICHETI RADHAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 3. KUMARI VELICHETI SARVANI, D/O VELICHETI RADHAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 301, OPERA WINDSOR, 16TH MAIN WEST, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12373 WP No. 6378 of 2025 ROYAL MERIDIAN LAYOUT, BEGUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 068. 4. SMT. SONAL ANAND W/O CHETAN ANAND, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO 37/1, SRINIVAS APARTMENTS, MANDAPAM ROAD, KAIPAUK CHENNAI, TAMILNADU - 600 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 IN MVC NO. 5104/2021, ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ASCJ AND ACJM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU AS PER ANNX-E AND TO HOLD THAT THE SUMMONING OF INVESTIGATION OFFICER TO TENDER EVIDENCE TO DISPOSE OF THE CLAIM PETITION ON MERITS BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ARRIVING THE CONCLUSION IN RESPECT OF NEGLIGENCE ISSUE TO THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12373 WP No. 6378 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - Insurance Company is before this Court calling in question an order dated 20.12.2024 by which the application seeking summoning of the Investigating Officer to tender evidence has been turned down. 2. Heard Shri Ravi S. Samprathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Santosh S. Nagarole, learned counsel appearing for caveat/respondent No.1. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: On 25.07.2021 one Kumari. Velicheti Pavani, daughter of respondents No.1 and 2, while travelling in car bearing No.TN- 01-BK-8632 suffered injuries and later succumbed to the said injuries. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 file a claim petition before the concerned Court under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 ('the Act' for short) and sought grant of compensation of Rs.60,21,00,000/- as against the insurer and insured of car No.TN-01-BK-8632 and the same was numbered as MVC No.5104/2021. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12373 WP No. 6378 of 2025 4. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the matter before the concerned Court. At the time of evidence, the petitioner - Insurance Company files an application under Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2 for summoning of the Police Officer, who had investigated and filed a charge sheet. Objections were filed by the claimant. The Tribunal rejects the application on the score that the Police Officer's evidence is not necessary for adjudication of the claim petition. It is therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal rejects the application, notwithstanding the fact that what is invoked is Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) and not Section 304A of the IPC and therefore, the claims Tribunal was of the opinion that the witness - Investigating Officer was not necessary for adjudication, as to why Section 304 of the IPC is invoked. The learned counsel would further submit that the claim would turn around, if the Investigating Officer is summoned and examined for the offences that he has laid. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12373 WP No. 6378 of 2025 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents - claimants contend that what is envisaged in law before the concerned Court in a claim petition is a summary procedure. Therefore, summoning of the Investigating Officer is not the one that is envisaged in law. The learned counsel would further submit that the records would speak for themselves and the determination would be on the basis of the injuries sustained. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have produced the materials available on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue in the lis does not relate to the merit of the matter. The petitioner files an application seeking summoning of the Investigating Officer, who had filed a charge sheet. It is the case of the petitioner that the charge sheet was the conclusive proof to decide the issue of negligence. Therefore, the Investigating Officer was necessary, as to why he had filed a charge sheet under Section 304 of the IPC and not Section 304A of the IPC., it should be a rash and negligent act on the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12373 WP No. 6378 of 2025 part of the accused therein. The concerned Court rejects the application filed by the Insurance Company by the following order: Orders on IA filed U/O. 16 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC The counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed this application under Order 16 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Sec.151 of CPC, with a prayer to issue witness summons to the Police officer Rukmangathn, Inspector of Police, Mamallapuram PS, Chengalpattur District to tender evidence and to produce records. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the respondent No.2 has contended that, the petitioners filed the claim petition against respondents seeking compensation for the death of Velicheti Pavavi in RTA. The petitioners have alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the insured car. The police have filed charge sheet against the driver of offending car u/s 304 IPC (culpable homicide). To ascertain the reason why the charge sheet is being filed under said section and to prove its defence, the aforesaid witness required to be summoned and to give evidence and produce records. Hence, prayed to allow the application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has seriously opposed the application by filing detailed objections and contended that, the charge sheet is already filed before this Court and the charge sheet contains elaborate details of the manner of accident. Hence, there is no necessity to examine the police officer who conducted the investigation. Further, similar application filed by the respondent No.2 was already dismissed on merits and hence, prayed to reject the application. 4. Heard and perused. 5. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation for the death of one Velicheti Pavani in the RTA. The petitioners have already lead their evidence and have produced the charge sheet before this Court. Admittedly, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the car - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12373 WP No. 6378 of 2025 bearing Reg. No.TM-01-BK-8632 for the commission of offence punishable U/Sec. 279 and 304 of IPC. 6. The copy of the charge sheet and the translation copy of the charge sheet were already marked as Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.9(a). In the charge sheet, the 1.0. has stated that, the accused drove the car in high speed i.e. 171 kilometer per hour with rash and negligent manner and hit the car on the center median and fell up side down and accident occurred. 7. Now, the present application is filed by the respondent No.2 to ascertain the reason why the charge sheet is being filed against the driver of the insured car for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC (culpable homicide). 8. It is settled principles of law that, in a motor vehicles accident compensation cases strict proof of accident and manner of accident not required. In this view, Court receives support from the law declared by Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2009(13) SCC page 530 in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachalapradesh Road Transport Corporation and in AIR 2011 SC page 1504 in the case of Parameshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others. 9. In the instant case, the contents of the charge sheet prima facie establishes the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Invoking Section 304 of IPC and not invoking Section 304-A of IPC is not the fact in issue before this Claims Tribunal. Hence, the question of summoning the witness i.e. the Investigation Officer to explain why Section 304 of IPC is invoked is not all necessary for adjudication of the claim petition. 10. Further, it is also significant to note that, this Court has already dismissed the similar application i.e. application filed by the respondent No.2 U/o. 16 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC to summon the Investigation officer as per order dated 24.07.2024. Admittedly, the said order is not challenged before the Appellate Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that, the present application does not - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12373 WP No. 6378 of 2025 survive for consideration and hence, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The application filed by the respondent No.2 under Order 16 Rules 1 & 2 R/w Sec.151 of CPC is hereby dismissed." Though it is settled principle of law that in compensation cases strict proof of accident and manner of the accident is not required. In the case at hand, what the Insurance Company wanted to achieve was with regard to the negligence and the charge sheet to be filed on such negligence, which would become necessary for determination of the compensation. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case and not being treated as a precedent, I deem it appropriate to permit Investigating Officer to be examined, on a date fixed by the concerned Court. The examination of the Investigating Officer shall be restricted to what was pleaded in the application. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 20.12.2024 in MVC.No.5104/2021 on the file of the XIV ASCJ - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12373 WP No. 6378 of 2025 & ACMM Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru stands quashed. iii) The application shall merit reconsideration at the hands of the concerned Court and on such reconsideration, the Investigating Officer shall be permitted to be examined, on the contents of the application and nothing beyond that, on a date fixed by the concerned Court. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53 CT: BHK