- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33826 MFA No. 2234 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2234 OF 2020 (MV- I) BETWEEN: THE LEGAL MANAGER IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SHASHI KIRAN BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, SHANKARAMUTTA ROAD, MYSORE, NOW REP BY THE LEGAL MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GIC LTD., CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR NO.141, 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAVESH H S/O HIRIYANNA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT HOSAGADDE VILLAGE AND POST THEERTHAHALLI TALUK NOW AT C/O SRI GAJANANA RICE INDUSTRIES KUCHUR ROAD, HEBRI KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 2. G HYDER S/O J ABDUL KHADER AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O AGRAHARA CHURCH JAKRIBETTU Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33826 MFA No. 2234 of 2020 AGRAHARA POST AND VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. ANANYA RAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VYASA RAO K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.01.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 815/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITONAL MACT, UDUPI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,53,908/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. ON RS.5,18,908/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT Heard leaned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent No.1. 2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant - Insurance Company, challenging the judgment dated 08.08.2019 in MVC.No.815/2016, passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Udupi,. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33826 MFA No. 2234 of 2020 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 18.10.2014 at about 03:30 p.m., the respondent No.1 (petitioner-claimant) was driving a Maruti car bearing Reg.No.KA-20-N-8525 from Udupi towards Hiriadka. When the car was near Onthibettu, a tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-19-AC-9955, being driven in a rash and negligent manner and the driver lost the control and as such, hit the Maruti car, resulting in the accident. The petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident and subsequently shifted to the hospital. Therefore, he claimed adequate compensation from the owner and insurer of the lorry. The owner of the lorry, despite service of notice, did not appear and placed exparte. 6. Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, the appellant herein, entered appearance and filed objections to the claim petition. It contended that the accident was not caused by any negligence on the part of the driver of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33826 MFA No. 2234 of 2020 the tipper lorry, but the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner. Inter alia, it also denied the quantum of compensation claimed, alleging it to be exorbitant, imaginary and untenable. 7. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues. The appellant was examined as PW1, and a witness on his behalf was examined as PW2. Documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P10. The driver of the tipper lorry was examined as RW1, and two other witnesses on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company were examined as RW2 and RW3. Documents were marked as Exhibits R1 to R9. 8. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry was driving the vehicle with an expired driving licence. Consequently, it fastened the liability on the owner of the lorry but directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation, granting it the liberty to recover the same from the owner. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33826 MFA No. 2234 of 2020 Tribunal assessed the total compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.5,53,908/-. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal, contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record regarding negligence on the part of the claimant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company submits that the accident information report (Ex.P4), coupled with the Spot Mahazar (Ex.P.2), indicates that the car driver dashed his car to the right rear tire of the lorry and it clearly indicates that the negligence was on the part of the petitioner. He further submits that, apart from a dent to the mudguard of the rear left side of the lorry, there was no other damage to the tipper lorry. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the sole negligence was on the part of the lorry driver is not sustainable in law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33826 MFA No. 2234 of 2020 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the Tribunal has sufficiently appreciated the evidence on record and in fact, the accident had occurred on the left side of the road and as such, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted with. 12. A careful perusal of the police papers, particularly Exhibits P2 and P4, indicates that the car was moving towards Hiriadka from Udupi, and the tipper lorry was proceeding in the opposite direction towards Udupi. They also clearly show that the point of impact was on the left side of the road for the car driver. The road is about 18 feet wide and the accident occurred on the car driver's (left) lane of the road. 13. Obviously, there was no reason for the lorry driver to come on his wrong side when the accident occurred. The testimony of RW1 shows that a suggestion was made to him that while he was manoeuvring overtaking of another vehicle, the accident had occurred, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33826 MFA No. 2234 of 2020 which he has denied. The charge sheet and other police papers indicate that there was only about 1.5 to 2 feet distance available for the car driver from his vehicle to the left edge of the road. This aspect would clearly show that negligence cannot be attributed to the car driver to any extent. 14. The RW.1 being the driver of the tipper lorry, which is a heavy vehicle, was bound to take more caution while he was manoeuvring the overtaking of another vehicle. He has not explained as to why the tipper lorry was taken on his right side, when the accident took place. 15. Under these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company. It is worth noting that the appreciation of the evidence by the Tribunal is proper and no fault can be found with the same. Hence the appeal is a bereft of any merits. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33826 MFA No. 2234 of 2020 16. The Tribunal has already considered the question of the driving license of the lorry driver and it has applied the law as laid down by the various decisions and has come to the conclusion that the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from the lorry driver. 17. Hence, there being no merits in the appeal, the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23