- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010154312014 NC: 2026:KHC:46754 MFA No. 2266 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2267 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2266 OF 2014 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2267 OF 2014 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 2266/2014: BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD, DO-III, BANGALORE THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144,SUBHARAM COMPLEX M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER MR. A. GHANI …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SEETHARAMARAO B C.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI K S RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O SHIVARAMU R/O KOLLIGANAHALLI VILLAGE KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR DIST-562 117. 2. SRI SRIKANTHSWAMY, MAJOR S/O SIDDARAJU RESIDING AT NO.178 CHIKKA KAMMANAHALLI BEGUR HOBLI, GOTTIGERE POST Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010154312014 NC: 2026:KHC:46754 MFA No. 2266 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2267 of 2014 BANGALORE-560 083 (OWNER OF INDICA CAR NO.KA51/8261) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O DTD: 05.08.2016 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7132/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MEMBER MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,90,000/- AND RS.25,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 2267/2014: BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., DO-III, BANGALORE THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX M G ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001 REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER MR. A. GHANI ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SEETHARAMARAO B C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT JYOTHI W/O SRI K S RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O KOLLIGANAHALLI VILLAGE KANAKAPURA TLAUK RAMANAGARA DIST.-562 117. 2. SRI SRIKANTHSWAMY, MAJOR S/O SIDDARAJU RESIDING AT NO.178 CHIKKA KAMMANAHALLI - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010154312014 NC: 2026:KHC:46754 MFA No. 2266 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2267 of 2014 BEGUR HOBLI GOTTIGERE POST BANGALORE-560 083 (OWNER OF INDICA CAR NO.KA 51/8261) ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O DTD: 05.08.2016 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 9.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO. 7133/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS. 25,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.08.2026 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 Common judgment and award dated 09.12.2013 was passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru in MVC Nos.7132 of 2012 and 7133 of 2012. 2. Rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42 E-4653 in MVC No.7132 of 2012 and pillion rider of the said vehicle in MVC No.7133 of 2012, met with an accident on - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010154312014 NC: 2026:KHC:46754 MFA No. 2266 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2267 of 2014 18.08.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-51/8261. They filed claim petitions claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted amount of Rs.4,90,400/- and Rs.25,000/- receptively with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from date of petition till realisation and directed National Insurance Company Limited to deposit the said amount. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the National Insurance Company Limited has preferred M.F.A. No.2266 of 2014 and M.F.A. No.2267 of 2014 and mainly contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that due to the negligence of respondent No.2 herein i.e. driver of car, accident occurred and it was insured with the appellant-insurance company. The claimants stated that car dashed the back side of the motorcycle, but, the entire evidence shows that the motor cycle entered from a village road negligently into the Bangalore-Mysore Highway and dashed the front bumper of the car. This clearly shows that accident occurred only due to the negligent riding of the rider of - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010154312014 NC: 2026:KHC:46754 MFA No. 2266 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2267 of 2014 the motor cycle. Rider of the motor cycle violated the basic road regulations when he suddenly entered the highway by ignoring the flowing traffic from his right side and dashed against the front left bumper of the car. The Tribunal granted Rs.50,000/- under permanent physical impairment, which is impermissible. Therefore, requested this court to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 5. The manner of accident shows that on 18.08.2012, when rider and pillion driver of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-42 E-4653 were proceeding at Ramanahalli gate cross, Bidadi hobli, Ramanagara, the driver of Indicar car bearing registration No.KA-51/8261 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the Indica car. After service of notice, both the respondents appeared and filed separate statements of objections. Insurance company admitted policy and stated that - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010154312014 NC: 2026:KHC:46754 MFA No. 2266 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2267 of 2014 it was in force as on the date of accident. It is stated that driver of Indica car was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, but the charge sheet is filed against him. It is further stated that petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as RC owner and rider of motor cycle are not made as parties to the claim petition. Respondent No.2 examined the driver of Indica car, but he has not filed any document. Even after granting sufficient opportunity, respondent No.1 and his counsel were absent. As such, their defence was taken as nil by the Tribunal, and heard the arguments of petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and decided the matter. 6. PW1 in the cross examination stated that car came from back side and dashed against the two wheeler. He further stated that at the time of the accident, he entered into Mysore- Bangalore road from Ramanahalli Village. He observed the vehicular movement from the right side of the road while entering into the main road and saw the car from a distance of 500 metres. It is further stated that Ramanahalli bus stop is near to the place of accident. As such, the vehicles moved along the road used to pass slowly and the vehicles were driven - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010154312014 NC: 2026:KHC:46754 MFA No. 2266 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2267 of 2014 slowly. Two wheeler was badly damaged. Car suffered only damage to the right side of the bumper as per Exhibit P3-IMV report. 7. RW1 is driver of the Indica car. He stated that while he was proceeding with his family members, all of a sudden, rider of the motor cycle came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed the front right side of the bumper. But the police filed charge sheet against him. But, he stated that he did not know against whom police filed charge sheet. He admitted that police seized his car and subsequently, he got it released. He has not given any complaint against rider of the two wheeler either to the police or to the higher authorities. 8. Charge sheet is filed against him under Sections 279, 337 and Section 187 of the IMV Act. As per Exhibit P3-IMV report, front bumper at right side damaged, right side headlight and indicator, damaged engine bonnet, rear view mirror at right side of the car were damaged, whereas the motorcycle suffered damages both front and right side. The Tribunal - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010154312014 NC: 2026:KHC:46754 MFA No. 2266 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2267 of 2014 considered the evidence and stated that accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 9. The learned counsel for the insurance has relied upon Rules 7 and 8 of the Vehicles Road Rules and Regulation, 1989 and contended that it is the duty of the rider of the motor cycle to verify the vehicular traffic from right side while he was entering from service road to the main road. Petitioner stated that car dashed him from back side whereas the driver of the car stated that the rider of the motorcycle was coming from opposite direction dashed him. The learned counsel for insurance company contended that rider of the motorcycle was proceeding from service road to the main road and dashed the car without noticing the vehicular movement. 10. Petitioners-the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle are examined as P.W.1 and 2 and marked 17 documents. Respondent No.1-driver of the car is examined as R.W.1 and marked one document. Exhibit R1 is the letter issued by Subhash Medical Centre. The main contention of the insurance company is that PW1 admitted that he has seen the - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010154312014 NC: 2026:KHC:46754 MFA No. 2266 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2267 of 2014 car from a distance of 500 metres. But still he has not slowed down the vehicle. PW1 further stated that there was Ramanahalli bus stop at the place of the accident and as such, he was moving the vehicle slowly. The Tribunal has rightly considered the relevant documents and evidence on record and held that accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. 11. The learned counsel for the insurance has relied upon the Rules of the Road Regulation , 1989, wherein Rules 7 and 8 read as follows: “7. Overtaking not to be obstructed The drive of a motor vehicle shall not, when being overtaken or being passed by another vehicle, increase speed or do anything in any way to prevent the other vehicle from passing him. 8. Caution at Road Junction The drive of a motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching such intersection, junction at which traffic is not being regulated, if the road entered is a main road designated as such, give way to the vehicles proceeding along that road, and in any other case give way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right hand.” - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010154312014 NC: 2026:KHC:46754 MFA No. 2266 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2267 of 2014 12. But considering the Central Government Rules relied upon by the insurance counsel, this Court finds that it is the duty of the rider of the Motor vehicle to be cautious while entering from service road to the main road. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to fix the contributory negligence of the rider of the motor cycle as 20% and that of the car driver as 80%. Ordered accordingly. 13. In the result, both the appeals filed by the insurance company are allowed in part. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63