The Manager v. Smt Savitha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN:

THE MANAGER RELIANCE GIC LTD., NO.5/111 & 6/112 UNNATI ARCADE 1ST FLOOR, 1ST BLOCK DR. RAJKUMAR RAOD (1ST MAIN ROAD) RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 NOW REP BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING NO.28, M.G ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND:

SMT SAVITHA W/O LATE RENUKA S.R AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. MASTER MANOJ S.R S/O LATE RENUKA S.R AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS

¶3MISS. MAMATHA D/O LATE RENUKA S.R AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS SINE THE 2ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS ARE MINOR WILL BE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER & N/G I.E., 1ST RESPONDENT ALL ARE R/AT SHIVANAHALLI NIDASSALE VILLAGE HULIYURDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK, UJJANI TUMKUR DISTRICT. PRESENTLY R/AT C/O SMT NEELAMMA BUILDING NEAR COCONUT PLANTATION BEHIND GOVT. SCHOOL HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU-5600 91.

¶4LOKESH H.A S/O MR. APPE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.12, 1ST MAIN ROAD MARUTHINAGAR (VRUSHABAVATHINAGARA) KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU-560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LANKESH L, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3, (R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1) SRI. K.V. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.30.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.306/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-25), AWARDING COMPENSATION

OF RS.27,58,600/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 30.11.2022 passed in M.V.C.No.306/2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, at Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and granted compensation of Rs.27,58,600/-.

¶2The brief facts of the case are, one Renuka S.R., was riding TVS Victor Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-02/EK-8371 from Harohalli Cross towards his house. When he reached opposite to Gangadhareshwara Nilaya, the driver of the TATA Indica Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02/AD-9229 who was moving ahead of the aforesaid TVS Victor Bike in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly stopped the car and opened the front door of the car, due to which, he lost control over the motorcycle and dashed

the door of the car. As a result, he fell down and succumbed to injuries. Later, the jurisdictional Police registered the case in Crime No.156/2020 dated 04.06.2020 and laid charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. Subsequently, the claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased-Renuka.

¶3The Tribunal, on assessment of oral and documentary evidence placed before it, partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation as stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company is before this Court.

¶4Heard learned counsel Sri B. Pradeep for the appellant, learned counsel Sri Lankesh L., for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri K.V.Pradeep for respondent No.4.

¶5Apart from canvassing several contentions, learned counsel for the appellant primarily contended that the accident was caused solely due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. According to him, the motorcycle dashed the rear portion of the Indica car, which clearly substantiate that the deceased rode the same in a rash and negligent manner

without following any traffic rules. He also contended that the IMV report clearly depicts that the front portion of the motorcycle i.e., headlight and other parts were damaged, which clearly indicates that the deceased dashed Indica car without maintaining sufficient distance. Apart from this, he also contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding exorbitant compensation to the claimants under all heads. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶6Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and award and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶7We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment and award and other documents placed before us.

¶8As could be gathered from records, the accident in question and coverage of insurance policy to the offending vehicle are not in dispute.

¶9The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the accident was caused due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. We have carefully examined Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-complaint, Ex.P3-charge sheet, Ex.P4-spot sketch and Ex.P6-IMV report. On careful scrutiny of the same, it is noticed that in the complaint and charge sheet, it is stated that the driver of the car suddenly stopped the car and opened the right side front door, as a result of which, the deceased, who was riding his motorcycle behind the car, was unable to control his vehicle and suddenly dashed the door of the car. Thus, the accident caused and he sustained injuries and thereafter succumbed to the same. Even IMV report also depicts that the front portion of the motorcycle rode by the deceased was damaged. As such, it could be presumed that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the car. The appellant-Insurance Company has not seriously challenged the charge sheet by placing reliable evidence. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and attributed the negligence on the driver

of the offending vehicle i.e., TATA Indica car and accordingly, fastened the liability on the Insurance Company.

¶10We have carefully examined the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation on all heads as per the settled position of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court. As such, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.

¶11The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22