Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 63223 (KAR)

THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. JAGADEVI

MFA/201098/2025 · 2025-09-10

H P Sandesh, T M Nadaf

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5292-DB MFA No. 201098 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201098 OF 2025 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH NAMAKKAL DIVISION T.N., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BILGUNDI BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JAGADEVI W/O LATE CHANNAVEERAPPA, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. KAVERI D/O LATE CHANNAVEERAPPA, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. SHWETA D/O LATE CHANNVEERAPPA UPLONA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT (BAMS), (DIED ON 19.01.2022), NEELAMMA W/O LATE MALKAJAPPA, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5292-DB MFA No. 201098 of 2025 AGE: 83 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, (DIED ON 12.01.2021) ALL R/O. PLOT No.124, HUMNABAD ROAD, RS COLONY, BEHIND T.V. STATION, KALABURAGI-585 101. 4. P. JAYANTHI W/O PALANISWAMY, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY TATA LPT No.KA-01/AF-3096, R/O. H.NO.10/15, KATHALIPALAYA, 17TH MAIN, KORAMANGALA, 6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; V/O DTD. 10.09.2025, NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.12.2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND ADDL. MACT., AT KALABURAGI IN MVC NO.521/2020 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5292-DB MFA No. 201098 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This appeal is by the Insurance Company calling in question the Judgment and award dated 26.12.2024, in MVC No.521/2020, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge JMFC and Additional M.A.C.T at Kalaburagi, on the ground of contributory negligence so also quantum. 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle and death of channaveerappa are not in dispute. The only dispute is on the ground of liability, which is as per the appellant - Insurance Company, the Tribunal has failed to fasten the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased who was driving the car at the time of accident and the quantum of compensation. 3. Heard Sri Manavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company and Sri Babu H. Metagudda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Vide order 10.09.2025, notice of this appeal on respondent No.4 is dispensed with. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5292-DB MFA No. 201098 of 2025 4. Sri Manavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant with all vehemence submitted that the police have filed an abated charge sheet against the deceased who was driving the car at the time of accident so also against the driver of the lorry. It is the case of the claimants that the lorry which was proceeding ahead of the car without any indicator, abruptly turned towards Bharat Petrol Pump which was situated on the left side of the highway at Savalagi Village. At that point of time, the car which was following the lorry, came in contact with the lorry, the deceased channaverrappa, who was driving the car at that point of time, sustained grievous injuries, died on the way to the hospital. 5. He further submits that the driver of the car ought to have maintained the proper distance. In the case on hand, the collusion clearly shows that the driver of the car was not maintaining safe distance in terms of Rule 129 of the MV Rules, 1989. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and swayed on the ground that the lorry which was going ahead in middle of the road, abruptly - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5292-DB MFA No. 201098 of 2025 turned to left side at Bharat Petrol pump, without giving any indicator or hand signal. In these circumstances, though the abated charge sheet was filed even against the driver of the case, fastened the entire liability, holding that the driver of the lorry was entirely responsible and made the Insurance Company of the lorry to pay the entire compensation. He also states that the spot sketch as well as mahazar clearly shows that, the driver who was following the lorry has not maintained proper safe distance and is responsible for accident being negligent while driving. With this he sought to saddle 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car. 6. So far as quantum is concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant - corporation that, the deceased was earning a salary of Rs.66,005/- per month as per Ex.P4. As per Ex.P16 - the income tax returns, his annual income was shown as Rs.4,68,450/-. In these circumstances, the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency requires re- consideration. As such, it is his contention that, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5292-DB MFA No. 201098 of 2025 compensation awarded requires to be reduced by allowing the appeal on these two grounds. 7. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company, Sri Babu H. Metagudda, with all vehemence submitted that, as per the spot sketch and the police records, though abated charge sheet has been filed on the deceased, who was driver of the car at the time of incident, it is the driver of the lorry who was moving ahead in the middle of the road, abruptly took the lorry on its left side without causing any indicator or hand signal, in those circumstances, the deceased who was moving behind the lorry on the same side, though tried to avoid the accident, the left side of body of the lorry came in contact with the right side of the car. In these circumstances, the accident has occurred and resulted in severe injuries, ultimately claiming the life of deceased. In these circumstances, the Tribunal while answering issue No.1, despite the police records, has considered the incident after going through the spot sketch and fastened the entire liability on the driver of the lorry holding that he is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5292-DB MFA No. 201098 of 2025 responsible for the accident. While answering Issue No.1 in affirmative on rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the Tribunal fastened the entire liability on the Insurance Company, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 8. So far as quantum is concerned, the amount shown in Ex.P6 was only in respect of nine months salary, the salary for the month of January to March, 2020, were not added, as the accident had occurred on 08.01.2020. Income tax returns required to be filed for annual income from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has properly considered the entire material on record, awarded appropriate compensation which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal on both the grounds and retain the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal paper, so also the spot sketch made available by the learned counsel for the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5292-DB MFA No. 201098 of 2025 appellant at the time of argument, the points that would arise for our consideration are as follows: i) Whether the appellant - Insurance Company made out a case to fasten contributory negligence on the deceased - driver of the car? if so, at what extent? ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires any interference at the hands of this court? 10. Our answer to the above points of consideration are as under: Point No.1 - Partly in affirmative to the extent of 20 %. Point No.2 – in Negative. Both the points for consideration are taken together in order to avoid repetition of facts. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5292-DB MFA No. 201098 of 2025 REASONS 11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, a perusal of the spot sketch clearly shows the spot of accident, which is almost in the middle of the road. Both the vehicles were proceeding in the same direction. The lorry moving ahead took a left turn abruptly, as claimed by the claimant, but if the driver of the car had maintained a safe distance and little circumspect, the incident could have been avoided. The way in which the accident has taken place and the damage suffered to both the vehicles, clearly shows the rash and negligent driving on the part of both the drivers of the car i.e., the deceased and the lorry. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. Though abated charge sheet was filed against the driver, as rightly contented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Tribunal swayed only on the point that the lorry moving ahead had taken sudden left turn abruptly, without showing any indication either by indicator or by hand signal. The Tribunal missed this important aspect of the matter. The vehicle which was - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5292-DB MFA No. 201098 of 2025 moving behind another vehicle required to maintain safe distance in terms of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, had it been maintained; the incident would have been avoided. The driver of the car, could have been more circumspect in driving the vehicle observing all the Rules of Motor Vehicle Rules and measures, would have avoided the accident. In these circumstances, we find force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company, however, not in the agreement with the percentage of contributory negligence contended. Though there is negligence on the part of the driver of the car in maintaining proper distance, the lorry driver ought not have taken the turn abruptly, which is moving in the middle of the road, without giving any signal either by way of indicator light or by hand signal. The vehicle being a heavy goods vehicle, the driver would have been more cautious while driving the vehicle on the road keeping in mind the safety of other road users. In view of the above, are of the considered opinion that we it would be appropriate to fasten 20% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5292-DB MFA No. 201098 of 2025 Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in favour of the appellant – Insurance Company. 12. So far as quantum is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant, the income tax return filed as per Ex.P16, the amount shown is only for a period of nine to eight months, since entire year was not completed as the deceased/assesse died in the first week of January, 2020. The lesser amount shown would not come to the aid of the appellant – Insurance Company to contend that the deceased was not earning Rs.66,005/- per month as salary, as per Ex.P4. In these circumstances, the Tribunal after considering entire material on record, awarded appropriate compensation, which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the ground on quantum raised by the Insurance Company required to be rejected and accordingly, rejected. 13. For the forgoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5292-DB MFA No. 201098 of 2025 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part, by modifying the judgment and award dated 26.12.2024, in MVC No.521/2020, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge JMFC and Additional M.A.C.T at Kalaburagi, to the extent of fastening contributory negligence on the driver of the car at 20% and 80% on the driver of the lorry, which is insured with the appellant - Insurance Company. ii) The appellant - insurance company shall deposit 80% of the compensation along with accrued interest awarded by the Tribunal before the concerned Tribunal, after deducting the amount in deposit before this Court within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith, for disbursement. iv) Disbursement as well as apportionment as per the order passed by the Tribunal. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5292-DB MFA No. 201098 of 2025 v) No order as to cost. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: AK