Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 30355 (KAR)

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER v. SUNDRAMMA

MFA/4835/2022 · 2026-07-17

Rajesh Rai K

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010302752022 NC: 2026:KHC:36745 MFA No. 4835 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4835 OF 2022(MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD 1ST FLOOR 656/C, 17TH MAIN ROAD 5TH CROSS, OPP. ROYAL ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL SARASWATHIPURAM MYSURU 09 NOW REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER REKHA MEMON REGIONAL OFFICE, SHUBARAM COMPLEX M G ROAD, BANGALORE 560001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. L SREEKANTA RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUNDRAMMA W/O LATE SIDDARAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS KANDAHALLI VILLAGE YELANDURU TLUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571441. 2. MAHADEVAMMA W/O MADASHETTY D/O LATE SIDDARAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS KUNAGALLI VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571442. 3. CHAITHRA W/O RAJENDRA Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010302752022 NC: 2026:KHC:36745 MFA No. 4835 of 2022 D/O LATE SIDDARAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE YELANDURU TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT. 4. KRISHNAMURTHY @ KITTY MAJOR S/O MARISIDDASHETTY KANDAHALLI VILLAGE YELANDURU TALUK CHARAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571441 (OWNER OF SPLENDOR BIKE KA 10-A 3030). 5. RAVIKUMARA S/O LATE RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS MARATI GONDALI JANANGA HOUSE NO 1614, RAILWAY STREET CHARAMARAJANAGARA TOWN CHARAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571313. 6. CHIKKABEEREGOWDA S/O LATE BEEREGOWDA HOUSE NO 78, AREPURA VILLAGE GUNDLUPETE TALUK CHARAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571109. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3: R4 SERVED, R5, R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 343/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, CHAMARAJANAGARA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,87,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010302752022 NC: 2026:KHC:36745 MFA No. 4835 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chamarajanagara (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) in MVC No.343/2016 dated 09.02.2022, whereby, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.15,87,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, and directed the appellant to pay 50% of the award amount to the respondent Nos.1 to 3-claimants, with liberty to recover the same from the insured. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 02.08.2016 at about 02.30 p.m., one Mahesh along with his father-4th respondent herein, travelling as a pillion rider in a Splendor Motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-10-A-3030. When they reached near the Village Kandahalli, at that time, the rider of the motorcycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident. As a result, the deceased-Mahesh fell down and sustained injuries and thereafter, he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the claim petition came to be filed by the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010302752022 NC: 2026:KHC:36745 MFA No. 4835 of 2022 legal representatives of the deceased seeking compensation in MVC No.343/2016. 3. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by fixing 50% liability on each of the vehicles involved in the accident and directed respondent No.2-Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the award amount, with liberty to recover the same from insured, the owner of the vehicle. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, insofar as it fixes 50% liability on each of the vehicles involved in the accident, the present appeal has been preferred. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Apart from urging several other contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has erred in fixing 50% negligence on the rider of the offending motorcycle and in directing the appellant to pay 50% of the compensation, with liberty to recover the same from the insured, by placing reliance on the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, although the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010302752022 NC: 2026:KHC:36745 MFA No. 4835 of 2022 accident had occurred prior to the amendment of the said proviso and, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the accident in question occurred prior to the amendment to the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said amendment has no retrospective effect and, therefore, is not applicable to the present case. In such circumstances, he submitted that the Tribunal was justified in fixing the liability and directing the appellant to pay 50% of the award amount, with liberty to recover the same from the insured. 7. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions by the respective parties and also perused the documents and evidence available on record. 8. Sub-section (4) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was amended with effect from 01.04.2022. Admittedly, the accident in question occurred on 02.08.2016, i.e., prior to the said amendment. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted, as - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010302752022 NC: 2026:KHC:36745 MFA No. 4835 of 2022 the amendment has no retrospective effect. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned award by fixing 50% liability and directing the appellant to pay the same, with liberty to recover the amount from the insured. 9. I find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed. 10. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20