- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27281 MFA No. 1705 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1705 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD V.V.ROAD, MANDYA, REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SRISHAILA S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. G K KENCHEGOWDA S/O KALIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT GOWDAIANADODDI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA-571428. 2. H V GOVINDARAJ SHETTY S/O VENKATACHALA SHETTY, MAJOR, R/AT HULIYAR-CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572218. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27281 MFA No. 1705 of 2014 15TH FLOOR, CENTURY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 4. BASAVARAJU S/O SRI RACHAIAH, MAJOR R/AT NO.1323, ANITHA CONVENT ROAD, NES EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. …RESPONDENTS (R1, R2 AND R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; BY SRI ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.69/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MADDUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,34,000/- WITH INTEREST @ P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. 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 respondent No.4-the insurer against the judgment and award dated 24.10.2013, passed in MVC No. 69/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur (for short “the Tribunal”). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27281 MFA No. 1705 of 2014 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that: On 31.12.2010, at about 7:40 p.m., the petitioner was traveling in a goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA- 11-4496, after completing election duty. The driver of the said goods tempo was driving the vehicle cautiously. However, at Maddur, on K.M. Doddi Road, near Borapura Gate, the driver of a bus bearing Registration No. KA- 44/1278 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the goods tempo. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and he has suffered permanent disability, with these averments, the claimant's prayed to award of compensation. 4. The Respondent Nos.1 and 3 were owners of the bus as well as goods tempo respectively, both Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte and Respondent Nos.2 and 4 filed a written statement denying - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27281 MFA No. 1705 of 2014 the contents of the claim petition and denied their respective liability to pay the compensation and each have contended that accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the other vehicle. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues. 6. The Claimant to prove his case examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exhibits P1 to P10. Respondent No.2 did not lead any evidence, while Respondent No.4 examined one witness as RW.1 and marked Exhibits R1 to R5. 7. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned judgment and award, holding that the drivers of both vehicles were negligent and attributed their negligence in the ratio of 50:50. The Tribunal assessed the compensation at ₹1,34,000/- and directed both insurers to pay 50% each. Aggrieved by this finding, Respondent No.4 has preferred the present appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27281 MFA No. 1705 of 2014 8. Heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record. 9. It is the case of the claimant that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. In his cross-examination by Respondent No.2, he admitted that the drivers of both vehicles were charge-sheeted. During cross-examination by Respondent No.4, he stated that the goods tempo was moving slowly and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver. In his cross-examination by Respondent No.2, it was not suggested that both drivers were negligent or that the accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the goods tempo driver. The claim made by the claimant, as per the averments in the petition, is specifically against Respondent No.4. 10. The claimant has produced the charge sheet at Ex.R1. It is true that the charge sheet was filed against both the drivers of the vehicle. The said charge sheet was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27281 MFA No. 1705 of 2014 not challenged by the drivers of both the vehicles. Since, all other parties connected to the offending vehicles as per the charge sheet are parties before the Tribunal, considering the same, the Tribunal has assessed the negligence of drivers of both the vehicles in the ratio of 50-50. 11. The grievance of Respondent No.4 is that, since the vehicle involved was a goods vehicle and the claimant was traveling as a passenger, Respondent No.4 cannot be held liable to pay compensation. If at all compensation is to be awarded, the liability should be fastened on Respondent No.3-the owner of the goods tempo and that Respondent No.4 should be exonerated. The contention of Respondent No.4 appears to be tenable. 12. Undisputedly, claimant was traveling in the said goods vehicle as a passenger to go to his native place after completing the election duty. Admittedly, he was not the owner of the goods transported in the said vehicle - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27281 MFA No. 1705 of 2014 therefore, under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short), the insurer of the goods vehicle is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation in case of death or injury to a gratuitous passenger traveling in the goods vehicle, except as mentioned under Section 147 of the MV Act. The Tribunal has not absolved the liability of respondent No.4 to pay the compensation. However, in the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal held that the insurers in both cases are jointly and severally liable, and accordingly directed Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to deposit the compensation amount. 13. The ground raised by the appellant is tenable, and it is entitled to be exonerated from liability to pay compensation or to indemnify the owner of the goods vehicle, who was carrying a gratuitous passenger. 14. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant, the accident occurred due to the composite - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27281 MFA No. 1705 of 2014 negligence of the drivers of both vehicles. The claimant was a passenger in one of the vehicles. Therefore, as held in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273, AIR 2015 SC 2261, where an accident is caused by the composite negligence of drivers of two or more vehicles, the victim is entitled to recover full compensation from any one of the joint tortfeasors. The tortfeasor who pays the compensation is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the proportionate share from the other joint tortfeasor, on the basis of this award. 15. For the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following, O R D E R (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Impugned judgment and award dated 24.10.2013, passed in MVC No. 69/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur stands modified. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27281 MFA No. 1705 of 2014 (iii) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are liable to pay the compensation in the ratio of 50-50 i.e., respondent Nos.1 (the owner of the bus) and 2 (insurer of the bus owner) together shall pay 50% and respondent No.3 (owner of the goods tempo) shall pay remaining 50% . Respondent No.4-National Insurance Company Limited is absolved from his liability to pay the compensation. (iv) The claimant is at liberty to recover the aforesaid amount from any of the joint tortfeasors and the joint tortfeasors who paid the amount can recover it from other joint tortfeasors in an appropriate proceeding on the basis of this award. (v) Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant on due acknowledgment. (vi) Send back Trial Court Record along with copy of the judgment to the Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16