Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 48053 (KAR)

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD v. S. RAVI

MFA/4252/2015 · 2026-01-28

P Sree Sudha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4753 MFA No. 4252 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4252/2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, BANGALORE THROUGH MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS APPEAL HUB, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-1 BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. C.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K SURYANARAYANA RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S. RAVI S/O SOODAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O NO.138-C THERPET 1ST STREET, HOSUR TOWN KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT PRESENTLY R/AT NO.7, NEELAKANTAPPA NILAYA NEAR DEEPA HOSPITAL K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-36. 2. N. MANJUNATHA S/O NANJUNDAREDDY, R/O NO.30, CHOKKANATHAPURAM VILLAGE, NALLUR POST, HOSUR TQ KRISHNAGIRI DIST, TAMILNADU. Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4753 MFA No. 4252 of 2015 3. THE SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. NO.5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-1. 4. M/S. ARUNACHALA LOGISTIC PVT. LTD., OPPOSITE TO CVA COMPLEX, NEAR GPT PETROL BUNK, RAYAKOTA ROAD, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DIST, TAMILNADU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4-SERVED, V/O DTD:22.10.2018 R1-S. RAVI & R2-N. MANJUNATHA-H/S) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:7.3.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2859/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 28TH ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.7,15,850/-WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT IN COURT.(FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF RS.20,000/- WILL NOT CARRY INTEREST). THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 07.03.2015 passed by the II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru, in M.V.C.No.2859 of 2012. 2. The injured claimant, aged 32 years, met with an accident on 06.03.2012, and filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4753 MFA No. 4252 of 2015 entire evidence on record, granted the compensation of Rs.7,15,850/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. in which it is mainly contended that, petitioner was standing on the footpath by talking to the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-70- A-5866 parked on the Hosur road and at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-57-K-5710, coming in the same direction, dashed against the back side of the parked lorry, which in turn moved and knocked down the petitioner and he sustained injuries. So police registered a case in crime No.57/2012 against the driver of lorry bearing No.TN-57-K- 5710. However, the Tribunal, considered the evidence of R.W.2 and stated that accident occurred only due to the negligence of driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-A-5866 and not considered the other materials on record and therefore, it is to be set aside. It is further contended that the amounts granted under the head pain and suffering is also on higher side. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4753 MFA No. 4252 of 2015 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 5. Admittedly, the manner of accident shows that the driver Ramesh was standing in front of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-A-5866 speaking to the petitioner- claimant. When it was parked on the Mookandapalli Village, on Hosur-Bengaluru NH-07 road, at that time, another lorry bearing registration No.TN-57-K-5710 came from same direction in the high speed and on the wrong side of the road and dashed the back side of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-A-5866. So, due to the impact, the lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-A-5866, in turn, dashed the injured petitioner and he sustained injuries. The claim petition was filed against owner and insurer of lorry bearing registration No.TN- 57-K-5710 as respondent Nos.1 and 2, and owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-A-5866 as respondent Nos.3 and 4. Charge sheet is filed against the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-57-K-5710 in Crime No.57 of 2012 dated 03.02.2012. The Tribunal, considering the injury sustained by the petitioner-claimant, granted compensation of Rs.7,15,850/-, but directed respondent No.4- Insurance Company, i.e., the appellant herein, to deposit the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4753 MFA No. 4252 of 2015 entire compensation within two months from the date of the order. Admittedly, the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing registration No.TN-57-K-5710 and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-A- 5866. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that actual accident happened only due to the impact of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-A-5866 to the injured claimant and as such, contributory negligence of 50% is to be fixed on both the vehicles. But, in the present case, the injured is not the inmate of the lorry. Only when the lorry bearing registration No.TN-57-K-5710 dashed the lorry bearing registration No.TN- 70-A-5866, the said lorry, in turn, dashed the injured. As such, this Court finds it reasonable to hold respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay compensation and directing respondent No.2 alone to pay the entire compensation, and therefore, the question of contributory negligence does not arise. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e. owner and Insurer of Lorry bearing registration No.TN-57-K-5710 are liable to pay the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4753 MFA No. 4252 of 2015 compensation and respondent No.2 has to deposit the entire amount within one month from the date of this order. 7. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) It is held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal, i.e. owner and Insurer of lorry bearing registration No.TN-57-K-5710 are liable to pay the compensation, and respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount within one month from the date of this order. (iii) On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. (iv) Amount deposited by respondent No.4 before the Tribunal and *appellant before the High Court shall be refunded to them. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76 * Inserted vide Court order dt. 23.02.2026.