- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27976 MFA No. 5174 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5174 OF 2021(MV-D) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL OFFICE T P HUB, KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU - 09 NOW REPRESENTED BY M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GOWRI S. HOLLA W/O LATE N SUNDAR HOLLA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 2. SMT SANDYA S AITHAL D/O LATE N SUNDAR HOLLA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SRI S. RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE N SUNDAR HOLLA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27976 MFA No. 5174 of 2021 ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.102, BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, VIDYANAGAR, KADAKOLA POST, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 311 4. SRI KESHVA D. S/O SRI LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, POOJARI DONODI HOUSE, SHISHIL POST AND VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, MANGALORE. 5. SRI JAGADEESH S/O SRI LINGAPPA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.242, NEAR PRAKASH SHANTHA, PADAVINANGADY, KONCHAALY, MANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.07.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.422/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU (IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU), b) DISMISS THE PETITION IN MVC NO.422/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, (IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT MYSURU), WITH COSTS AS AGAINST THIS APPELLANT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27976 MFA No. 5174 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company calling in question the judgment and award dated 27.07.2021 in MVC No.422/2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru (In the Court of Additional Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru) (for short ‘Tribunal’). 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle and death of N. Sundar Holla are not in dispute; the only dispute is in respect of liability to pay the compensation on the ground that there is contributory negligence on the part of deceased to the accident as well as on the quantum of compensation. 3. Heard Sri Suresh K., learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance company and Sri Chetan B., learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27976 MFA No. 5174 of 2021 4. Sri Suresh K., taking this Court through the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal vehemently contended that the Tribunal has missed the fact that the place wherein the deceased was trying to cross the road was not a zebra cross or permitted crossing road. On the other hand, the passage to use to cross the road was situated close to the accident spot. There is a road i.e., Benduruwel junction provided for crossing the road. However, deceased trying to cross road abruptly, after crossing the road median at the time while he was on the way to proceed on the other side of the road, the accident has taken place. As such, the deceased was solely responsible for the accident. This important aspect of the matter was missed by the Tribunal. 5. Further, he has submitted that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that deceased was a retired Deputy Tahsildar, drawing pension of Rs.19,963/-. That apart, he was working as a Consultant with M.R.P.L., Mangaluru, drawing monthly salary of Rs.16,000/-. In the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27976 MFA No. 5174 of 2021 absence of proof to that effect and in those circumstances the Tribunal has erred in taking the income at Rs.26,449/- per month after deducting Rs.9,000/- p.m. towards family pension. On these grounds, he sought to allow the appeal and dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company on liability as well as quantum. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Chetan refuting the submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company with all vehemence submitted that the contentions raised by the appellant has no legs to stand for the simple reason that the insurance company has not led any evidence on its behalf in order to prove the contention now taken before this Court except producing insurance policy at Ex.R.1. The insurance company has not produced any contra evidence either oral or documentary to prove its case on contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal while discussing in para No.23 regarding liability clearly observed that the respondent No.3 has not stepped into - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27976 MFA No. 5174 of 2021 witness box to prove its defence taken in its objection statement. In these circumstances, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference at the hands of this Court and sought to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers, the only point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding the compensation as well as fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation? 8. My answer to the above point for consideration is in the affirmative for the following reasons: Though the insurance company has taken a specific contention before the Tribunal that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, however, it has not produced any contra evidence either by leading oral - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27976 MFA No. 5174 of 2021 evidence or producing documentary evidence to prove its contention. The claimants have produced relevant documents i.e., Police records which clearly shows that a case is registered against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., Autorickshaw. The Police after conclusion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the driver of the offending Autorickshaw. The said charge-sheet was neither challenged by the owner of the Autorickshaw nor by the insurance company on the point of negligence on the part of driver of the Autorickshaw. The road wherein the accident had taken place is very near to the bus stop. The deceased after alighting from the bus at the bus stop, proceeded towards Surathkal route bus stop and when he was about to cross the road in a day broad light i.e., at 10.00 a.m., the driver of the Autorickshaw came in a high speed, rash and negligent manner endangering the human life and personal safety of others, dashed against the deceased and caused the accident resulting in severe head injuries as well as injuries on his left wrist, ultimately - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27976 MFA No. 5174 of 2021 resulting in death on 23.11.2016 i.e., following day. It is also on record that the Tribunal while discussing on the point of liability at para No.23, had clearly held that on both the contentions of the insurance company i.e., on driving licence of the driver as well as the contributory negligence on the deceased, the insurance company has not stepped into witness box to prove its defence. In those circumstances, the Tribunal held that the driver of the vehicle was the cause for the accident and in the absence of contra evidence, oral as well as documentary evidence, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no infirmities in the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 holding that the driver of the Auto Rickshaw is the root cause for the accident which has claimed the life of N.Sundar Holla. 9. Sofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal on record having considered Ex.P.15, the Bank statement of deceased which reveals - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27976 MFA No. 5174 of 2021 that deceased received monthly pension of Rs.19,963/- during the month of April, 2016 and also relied on Ex.P.15 wherein a sum of Rs.16,000/- received through NEFT during February, 2016 to May, 2016 from M/s. M.R.P.L., Mangaluru and after deducing Rs.9,000/- family pension, properly considered the income at Rs.26,449/-. This Court finds no infirmities committed by the Tribunal while taking the income of deceased at the amount stated supra. 10. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the contentions of appellant – insurance company. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the affirmative and against the appellant – insurance company and proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal sans merit and dismissed; ii) In terms of the memo, 50% of the amount has already been deposited before the Tribunal, the balance amount along with - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27976 MFA No. 5174 of 2021 accrued interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization shall be deposited by the insurance company. iii) The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. iv) The apportionment and disbursement of the amount shall be as per the directions of the Tribunal. v) No order as to costs. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29