- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26624 MFA No. 6022 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6022 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.1119/B, M.C. ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401. BY REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 027. BY IT'S MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOHANLAL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O HAJARI RAMJI, PROP MOHAN ELECTRICALS AND HARDWARE, KOLLEGALA ROAD, MALAVALLI TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401 ALSO AT R/O MUSLIM BLOCK, MALAVALLI TOWN. 2. UMARAM AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O HAJARI RAMJI, R/O MUSLIM BLOCK, MALAVALLI TOWN, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26624 MFA No. 6022 of 2014 MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. 3. KANDAS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O GOPALDAS R/O BAZAR STREET, MALAVALLI TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. Y. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.01.2014 PASSED IN MVC No.485/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MALAVALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,20,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurer (respondent No.3) against the Judgment and award dated 17.01.10214 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Malavalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in M.V.C.No.485/2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26624 MFA No. 6022 of 2014 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 16.06.2011, the claimant was travelling in a car owned by respondent No.1 bearing registration No.KA-05-ME-1871 from Bengaluru to Malavalli. When the said car reached near Sherwah Circle, Channapattana Town, the car coming from the right side driven in a rash and negligent manner overturned and hit the vehicle in which the claimant was travelling. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment as an inpatient and suffered permanent disability. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 have not filed written statement. Respondent No.3 in its written statement contended that accident had not occurred due to negligence of driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-05-ME-1871. On the contrary the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of unknown car. Therefore respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation. It also denied other averments in the claim petition and denied its liability to pay the compensation. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal had framed the necessary issues for its determination: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26624 MFA No. 6022 of 2014 "1. Whether Petitioner proves that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and he sustained injuries? 2. Whether petitioner proves that, he has not filed any MVC petition in other court pertaining to said accident, except this Hon'ble Court? 3. Whether Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 4. What order or award?" 6. The Claimant to prove his case, got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked 11 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. Respondent No.3 got marked one document as per Ex.R1. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and awarded compensation directing the respondents 1 and 3 to pay the same. Same is challenged in the present appeal. 8. I have Heard the arguments of learned counsels for both the sides. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26624 MFA No. 6022 of 2014 ME-1871, on the contrary it was due to negligence of driver of an unknown car. The complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 against an unknown car and police after investigation filed a `C' report. Therefore question of liability of respondents 1 and 3 to pay the compensation does not arise. The Tribunal in the impugned Judgment held that accident occurred due to negligence of offending vehicle but made respondents 1 and 3 liable to pay the compensation which is erroneous. Therefore, prayed to set aside the same. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that accident occurred due to negligence of drivers of both the vehicles and the claimant was an inmate of the said vehicle. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3 and it was a package policy. The claimant could recover the of compensation from the joint tortfeasors, this aspect has been considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. This does not call for any interference by this Court. Therefore he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the records. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26624 MFA No. 6022 of 2014 12. In the claim petition, it is stated that driver of the car in which the claimant was travelling took the vehicle to the extreme edge of the road and at that time an unknown vehicle dashed to the right side front wheel of the vehicle. As a result, the offending vehicle in which the claimant was travelling overturned and fell down, causing him to sustain injuries. 13. The claimant was examined as PW-1 and in his evidence the said fact was reiterated. The evidence given by PW-1 clearly indicates that the impact by an unknown vehicle caused the car in which the claimant was travelling, to overturn and fall. This indicates that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the car in which the claimant was travelling. 14. In the cross examination of PW-1, he stated that the car would not have overturned had the unknown vehicle not dashed with it. Thus, he admitted that the car in which the claimant was travelling overturned only because it was hit by another car. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26624 MFA No. 6022 of 2014 15. The driver of the car in which the claimant was travelling filed a complaint which is marked as per Ex.P1. In the said document it is alleged that the accident occurred due to driving of vehicle in a rash and negligent manner by the driver of an unknown car. FIR was registered against the unknown car. After investigation `C' report has been filed which is not in dispute. During investigation police also found that accident occurred due to negligent driving of car in which the claimant was travelling. 16. To claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act it is necessary to prima facie prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car wherein claimant was travelling. The Claimant was unable to prove it. The Tribunal has not discussed these facts while answering issue No.1. Except referring to the documents and evidence of PW-1 nothing was brought out by respondent No.3 in the cross examination of PW-1. 17. Admittedly claimant was a passenger in the said vehicle. There are no materials to show that accident occurred - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26624 MFA No. 6022 of 2014 due to negligent driving of both vehicles. Even claimant has not made out such a case and not filed petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, driver of the car wherein claimant was travelling cannot be held as joint tortfeasors. Unless it is proved that driver of the car in which the claimant was travelling was also responsible for the accident, the question of joint tortfeasors does not arise. Under the circumstances, the contention of appellant-insurer is tenable. Accordingly I pass the following: ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. The impugned Judgment and award dated 17.01.2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Malavalli in M.V.C.No.485/2012 is set aside. 3. Claimant is directed to refund/redeposit the amount of compensation if it is already paid to him under the award passed by the Tribunal. 4. Claim petition is dismissed as against respondents 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer submits amount in deposit may be transferred to the Tribunal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26624 MFA No. 6022 of 2014 Accordingly office is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal forthwith. Liberty is also given to the appellant-insurer to receive the same in accordance with law from the Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT:PH