- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16088 MFA No. 1723 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1723 OF 2016(MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., NO.204, TRI ARCADE, KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, S.S. PURAM, MYSORE. NOW REP BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., #121, THE ESTATE BUILDING, 9TH FLOOR, DICKSON ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP. B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAVEENA, S/O. TIBBEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT. AREKALDODDI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428. 2. VIOLET C RODRIGUES, D/O. LATE ALWYN. V RODRIGUES, AGE:MAJOR, NO.53, PURVA PARK, APTS TULIP BLOCK, T-410, COXTOWN, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16088 MFA No. 1723 of 2016 MSO CLY, JEEVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 005. …RESPONDENTS (R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O/D 23.11.2023 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED2.1.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1473/214 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MADDUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,40,560/- WITH INTEREST @ 7% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.1473/2014 dated 02.01.2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur, the appellant/Insurance company is before this Court questioning the liability. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 11.05.2014 at about 4.30 p.m., he was proceeding in his Bajaj Discovery Motorcycle slowly and cautiously on the left side of the Maddur- Malavalli Road, when he reached near Goravanahalli Gate, at that time, one Maruthi Car SX being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner and at high speed came from - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16088 MFA No. 1723 of 2016 the opposite direction and dashed against the claimant and caused the accident. Due to the said impact he fell down and sustained grievous and multiple injuries. With regard to the accident, the Tribunal gives a finding that as per the evidence and police records, the charge sheet is filed against the claimant himself, but however the Tribunal observed that neither of the parties have placed before the Court the relevant material and fixes the contributory negligence at 20% on the rider of the motorcycle and 80% on the driver of the opposite car and accordingly, granted the compensation of an amount of Rs.3,40,560/-. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company submits that the evidence on record clearly shows that because of the negligence of the claimant himself, the accident had taken place and charge sheet is filed against the claimant. Even PW2-doctor’s evidence shows that he has consumed alcohol at the time of the accident. All these things clearly show that the negligence is on the part of the claimant and for his own negligence he cannot claim compensation under an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16088 MFA No. 1723 of 2016 4. Though notice is served on respondent No.1, no Vakalath is filed on behalf of him. 5. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the appellant, perused the material on record. The police records are placed before the Court which reveals that the charge sheet is filed against the claimant himself, the Tribunal gives a finding that the both the parties have not filed the document in support of the negligence of the driver. When an application is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the burden lies on the claimant to prove that there is negligence on the part of the opposite vehicle. When the police records are against him, all the more responsibility lies on him, but said responsibility was not discharged by him and whatever material on record, it points out at the negligence on the part of the claimant. In that view of the matter, he is not entitled for any compensation in an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the award granted by the Tribunal needs to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/ Insurance Company is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16088 MFA No. 1723 of 2016 i. The order in M.V.C.No.1473/2014 dated 02.01.2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur, is set aside. ii. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transmitted to the Tribunal. iii. The appellant/Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited iv. The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. v. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. vi. No costs. vii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 47