- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28278 MFA No. 7082 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7082 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE LEGAL MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SUNDARAM TOWERS, NO.45 & 46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-600 014. BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1, CHENNAI-600 002 BY IT’S MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. C PRAVEEN AGE 28 YEARS, S/O CHANNABASAPPA GOWDA, R/AT HUNASEKOPPA, DYAVANAHALLI, SHIMOGA-577 419. 2. F BALARAJU MAJOR, NO.741, BEGUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C. THIPPESWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O DTD:07.06.2018, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28278 MFA No. 7082 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4181/14 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.98,238/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 9.06.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 22.08.2016 passed by the Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.4181 of 2014. 2. The injured claimant, who was pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA01/EQ-5311, met with an accident on 01.03.2014, and filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted the compensation of Rs.98,238/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has preferred this appeal and mainly contended that there was no compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 134C of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28278 MFA No. 7082 of 2016 Indian Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘Act’) either by the insured or of Section 158(6) of M.V. Act by both the insured and the concerned Investigating police Officer. The claim petition was bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties and not maintainable. It is further contended that even if the claimant failed to make the driver as a party to the proceedings, it was under the statutory obligation as per Rule No. 235 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, to send notices to the owners, drivers of the vehicles said to have been involved in the accident and to call upon them to produce any evidence as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. D.S. Mylarappa and others reported in 2008 ACJ p.1964, wherein it was held as follows: “Driver is a necessary party to decide issue of negligence”. The principles of natural justice demand that a person must be given an opportunity to defend his action before held responsible or liable for his alleged action or ommission and that too in the absence of result of criminal case filed against him.” 4. It is further contended by the appellant that the Tribunal failed to frame proper, relevant and unnecessary - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28278 MFA No. 7082 of 2016 issues, and framed the issues mechanically without proper application of mind. The issue of negligence was decided without appreciating the material available on record properly and the injured claimant admitted in his evidence that the tipper was to the left side of their motorcycle, and the accident occurred in the middle of the road and junction of the said road. It is contended that as per IMV report, front right side bumper was damaged while rear wheel mudguard and crash guard damaged. This shows that motor cycle was in the process of overtaking the tipper, came in contact with right corner bumper of lorry and accident occurred only due to the negligence of driver of the motor cycle. If at all the tipper has dashed the motor cycle from behind, the first person to be grievously injured would be the pillion rider, that is petitioner- claimant. But the facts are twisted before the Tribunal. 5. One Karthik and Siddhamma, who assisted Investigating officer for preparing Exhibit P5-spot mahazar and P4-sketch were not examined. Exhibit P1 - complaint was not given by an eyewitness. The Tribunal erred in not considering the oral and documentary evidence led in by the insurer - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28278 MFA No. 7082 of 2016 through R.W.1. Memo issued by District Transport Office, Katihar, was not disputed. The appellant immediately after the service of notice addressed a letter to the owner requesting him to produce the relevant documents including driving licence and the insured was under legal mandate under Section 134(C) of the Act to furnish the information. Insured did not choose to contest or choose to enter into the witness box for his obvious reasons and adverse inference is to be drawn against him. The Tribunal has held that insurer has not proved relevant exhibits, though the claimant failed to produce the evidence as required under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, requested to set aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 7. The manner of accident as mentioned in the petition is that, on 01.03.2014 at about 11.00 p.m. while petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider in motorcycle bearing registration No.KA01/EQ-5311 driven by his friend, the driver of the Tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51/A-6629 came in a rash and negligent manner from the Huskur gate side towards Bengaluru - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28278 MFA No. 7082 of 2016 and dashed the motorcycle and dragged few feet away from the accident. As a result, the pillion rider sustained injury, shifted to the hospital and treated as an inpatient. He sustained grievous injuries. Petitioner stated that accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the tipper lorry. After the investigation, police filed charge sheet Ex.P.3 against driver of the tipper. 8. After issuance of the notice before the Tribunal, respondent No.2 therein remained ex-parte and respondent No.1 filed written statement. Respondent No.1-insurer of the vehicle filed its written statement and stated that petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties, and admitted the issuance of policy in favour of respondent No.2. Respondent denied the negligence of lorry driver and stated accident occurred only due to the negligence of rider of the motorcycle. Owner of the vehicle wilfully entrusted the said lorry to the person who had no valid and effective driving licence. As such, there is breach of violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and they are not liable to any compensation. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28278 MFA No. 7082 of 2016 9. Petitioner was examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined two witnesses namely P.Ws.2 and 3, and got marked Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P21. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that his friend Prasanna was riding motorcycle and his another friend Shamanth lodged the complaint, but he has not seen the accident. He further stated that lorry was on the left side of the vehicle and rider was wearing helmet and he knew the rider from past 5 years and he was having driving licence. It was suggested to him that rider of the motorcycle attempted to overtake the lorry and in that process, the accident took place, but he denied the said suggestion. He admitted that accident has taken place in the middle of the road, and it occurred at a junction. It was also suggested that accident was not occurred due to negligence of the driver of the lorry, but he denied it. The respondent No.1 examined R.W.1 - and he stated that owner of the vehicle wilfully entrusted the lorry to a person who had no valid and effective driving licence and hence, violated Section 3(1) of the Act. He collected the copy of driving licence of Rajesh Kumar vide D.L.No.2213/F/2013/KTR and sent the same to District - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28278 MFA No. 7082 of 2016 Transport Office, Katihar for verification and in turn they have issued a Memo stating that, the DL No.213/F/2013/KTR is not issued by District Transport Office and it clearly shows that driver was not having valid driving licence. 10. The Tribunal observed that R.W.1 has not stated anything regarding the negligence of the driver of the motor cycle and he has also not stated anything regarding negligence attributed to the driver of the tipper lorry. The complainant stated that immediately after receiving information, he went to the place of accident as rider and pillion rider were not in a position to speak. On enquiry, he came to know that the tipper lorry dashed the motorcycle. He gave complaint under Exhibit P1. The Tribunal further observed that as per Exhibit P4 and P5, the motor cycle was on the left side of the road. The tipper lorry, after having distracted from its lane, came to the left side of the road and dashed the motor cycle. As a result, the accident occurred. As per Exhibit P6-IMV report, both the vehicles were damaged. Front right side bumper, front right side shape of the tipper lorry was damaged and rear wheel mudguard of the motorcycle was damaged and also rear both - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28278 MFA No. 7082 of 2016 side indicators, sensors, crush guard, fuel tank of the motorcycle were damaged. The driver of the tipper lorry was not examined before the Tribunal by the insurance company. The Tribunal observed that mere taking defence is not sufficient and driver was the right person to speak about the accident, but he was not summoned. 11. As per the evidence of R.W.1, the accident occurred only on account of the negligent act of the driver of the tipper lorry, who took the lorry towards extreme left side in the direction in which motorcyclist was proceeding. IMV report supports Exhibit P4-sketch. 12. The connected claim petition in MVC No.1424 of 2014 was filed by rider of the said motorcycle in which the liability was fastened on the insurance company, i.e. the appellant herein, and the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation. It was also observed that as per the copy of driving licence of Rajesh Kumar bearing No.1222/2010 and the date of issue on 18.10.2010, verification was made in respect of D.L.No.2213/F.2013/Ktr as per Ex.P.3(a). This clearly shows that there was difference in the copy of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28278 MFA No. 7082 of 2016 driving licence produced and verification made. In MVC No.1424 of 2014, it was held that the contention of respondent No.1 has no substance. The Tribunal observed that as the connected matter was already disposed of, it was not inclined to take different view regarding the liability and held that respondent No.2 being the owner and respondent No.1 being the insurer, both of them are jointly and separately liable to pay the compensation. 13. Though the insurance company has preferred the present appeal against the impugned judgment and award, they have not preferred any appeal against the award passed in MVC No.1424 of 2014, which is a connected case against the rider of the same motorcycle. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the entire evidence on record and held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper lorry and charge sheet is also filed against him. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal regarding liability. 14. In the result, this appeal filed by the insurance company has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. If at all the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28278 MFA No. 7082 of 2016 appellant-insurance company has not deposited the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, they are directed to deposit the same within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the respondent No.1-claimant is permitted withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64