- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10696 MFA No. 2478 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2478 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GEN INS. CO.LTD., ZENITH HOUSE KESHAVRAO KORE MARG, OPP. RACE COURSE, MAHALAKSHMI, MUMBAI – 400 034. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., NO.121, THE ESTATE BUILDING, 9TH FLOOR, DICKSON ROAD, BANGALORE – 42. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP.B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JAIPRAKASH @ PRAKASH, S/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT KESTUR VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 585 202. 2. K.S.NAVEEN, S/O. K.S. SHANKAR, KESTUR AT POST, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK – 585 202. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. VENKATE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10696 MFA No. 2478 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.43/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,04,665/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Pradeep.B, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. K. Venkate Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 though served remain unrepresented. 2. This appeal is by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 22.08.2015 passed by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in MVC.No.43/2011 (‘Tribunal’ for short) on the ground of liability. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10696 MFA No. 2478 of 2016 3. Sri. Pradeep.B, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer on short point argued that in the cross- examination of the claimant, he has stated his ignorance regarding the rider of the motorcycle, whereas the crime was registered against a particular person. In other words, he is not specific about who was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident. He has taken two names, one is Naveen and another is Shashidhar. But the case came to be lodged against Shashidhar as rider of the motorcycle. This clearly shows that there is both implication of the vehicle as well as rider of the motorcycle in collusion with the owner and the rider of the motorcycle. On this, he submits that the claim petition be dismissed against the insurer. 4. In contrast, Sri.K.Venkate Gowda, learned counsel for the claimant submits that except the stray answers nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross- examination. He further submits that the police have filed charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle. Neither - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10696 MFA No. 2478 of 2016 the rider of the motorcycle nor the owner of the motorcycle, till date called in question the charge sheet filed by the police. Further he submits that the insurer, except examining its officer, has not summoned the Investigation Officer to the witness box to confront him with his defence. In these circumstances, the insurer has not discharged its burden. 5. He further submits that the wound certificate at Ex-P5 and Ex-P7 besides stating the road traffic accident, mentioned the number of the vehicle along with date of accident. In these circumstances, the claim of insurer- appellant that there is an implication of the vehicle has no legs to stand. On this, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel, perused the entire appeal paper as well as the Trial Court record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10696 MFA No. 2478 of 2016 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the claimant/respondent No.1, except the cross-examination on certain defence taken, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the contention now argued in this appeal. 8. The complaint as well as charge sheet, clearly points towards Sri.Shashidhar was the rider of the vehicle at the time of accident not the Naveen, which now the appellant-insurer tried to point out. Except examining its officer, the insurer has not taken any interest to summon the Investigation Officer to the witness box and confront him with the defence now urged. In these circumstances, it becomes very hard to countenance the contentions taken in this appeal. 9. It is settled position of law that the burden once initially discharged, shifts to the other party, who takes a plea against the contention and he has to discharge the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10696 MFA No. 2478 of 2016 said onus by placing cogent evidence and relevant documents. 10. In the absence of any cogent or corroborative evidence placed on record, this appeal sans merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith for disbursement. The appellant-insurer shall deposit the balance compensation amount, along with the interest ordered by the Tribunal, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Upon deposit, the entire amount shall be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4