- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:461 MFA No. 3620 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3620 OF 2014(MV-I) BETWEEN: M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.88, 1187/947, 2ND FLOOR, RUB BUILDING A.A.CIRCLE, B.H.ROAD, SHIMOGA, NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, M.M.K.COMPLEX, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE- 577 001. REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LAKSHMINARASAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SRINIVASA @ SEENA S/O. BHOJA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, AT PRESENT NO WORK, (EARLIER WORKING AS AUTORICKSHAW DRIVER AND AGRICULTURIST) R/O BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001. 2. THIPPESHI, S/O. VENKATAPPA, AGE MAJOR, DRIVER OF VANI BUS BEARING NO.KA-20-AA-4444, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:461 MFA No. 3620 of 2014 R/O. MASUR VILLAGE, HIREKERURU TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 110. 3. SIRASAPPA GOGI, S/O VASAPPA GOGI, AGE MAJOR, OWNER OF VANI ROADWAYS AND OWNER OF VANI BUS BEARING NO.KA-20-AA-4444, R/O 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, SHIMOGA - 577 201. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.1.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.104/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HARIHAR AWARDING A SUM OF RS.5,72,131/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Lakshminarasappa K.S. who represents Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel on record for the appellant. Though notice was served upon respondents No.1 to 3, none represents. 2. Aggrieved by the order that is rendered by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Harihar in MVC - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:461 MFA No. 3620 of 2014 No.104/2011 dated 24.01.2014, this appeal is preferred by the insurance company. 3. The insurance company disputes its liability to pay compensation to the injured claimant i.e. respondent No.1 herein. 4. The matrix of the case as projected by respondent No.1 (hereinafter be referred to as the 'claimant' for the sake of convenience of discussion) is that on 23.12.2010 while he was proceeding in his goods auto bearing Registration No.KA.17 A.9673 from Anjanapura to Harogoppa village and while he was driving the said goods auto, a bus bearing Registration No.KA.20 AA-4444 came in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his auto, due to which he sustained injuries. 5. Arguing on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant produced sufficient evidence to establish that entire negligence lies on part of the claimant and due to his negligence in driving his auto the accident occurred, yet the Tribunal fastened liability against the appellant and therefore this appeal is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:461 MFA No. 3620 of 2014 preferred. Learned counsel also states that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence that is brought on record properly, more particularly the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and also Ex.R1- Map. Learned counsel also states that the claimant was not having proper licence to drive a transport vehicle. Learned counsel also contends that it is the claimant who dashed his vehicle against the bus. Learned counsel thereby seeks to exonerate the insurance company from liability to pay compensation. 6. Record discloses that the Tribunal subjecting the evidence of PW1, RW1, RW2, Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-Complaint, Ex.P3-Further Statement, Ex.P4-Mahazar, Ex.P6-IMV report and Ex.R1-Map to scrutiny came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the drivers of both vehicles. The Tribunal also held that the negligence is in the ratio of 50:50. 7. It is not in dispute that the driver of the bus admitted his guilt before the competent criminal court. The Tribunal at para 10 of the impugned order made a clear mention that when RW1 was cross-examined by the claimant, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:461 MFA No. 3620 of 2014 he admitted that the driver of the bus had admitted his guilt before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class. The Tribunal, having discussed at length with regard to the manner of happening of accident basing on the evidence produced, came to a conclusion that negligence lies on part of the drivers of both vehicles i.e. auto rickshaw and the bus. This Court does not find any grounds to hold that entire negligence lies on part of the claimant and he is solely responsible for the accident to occur. 8. Having considered the evidence produced and the discussion that is made by the Tribunal with regard to each and every aspect of the case and the findings given basing on such evidence and exhibiting an opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is proper on all aspects, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal. Though learned counsel also argued with regard to the amount that is awarded as compensation and held that the said amount is excessive, however, having considered the evidence of PW2 and the relevant medical record produced by the claimant, this Court is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:461 MFA No. 3620 of 2014 of the view that the amount awarded as compensation is highly justifiable. Therefore, this Court ultimately holds that the appeal lacks merits. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. The amount, if any in deposit, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal immediately. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44