Branch Manager v. Smt Rathnamma

NC:(2026:KHC:5576( MFA(No.(4497(of(2017( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( (

IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

STDATED(THIS(THE(31 (DAY(OF(JANUARY,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(C.M.(POONACHA( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(4497(OF(2017((MV-D)( ( BETWEEN:((

( BRANCH,MANAGER, THE,ORIENTAL,INSURANCE,CO,LTD,

GIRISH,COMPLEX, 1ST,FLOOR,,AGRAHARA,STREET, CHAMARAJANAGAR,TOWN,

, AND,ALSO, THE,ORIENTAL,INSURANCE,CO,LTD,

44/45,RESIDENCY,ROAD, LEO,SHOPPING,COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560025,

BY,ITS,REGIONAL,OFFICER, , Digitally …APPELLANT,signedtiby NIRMALA , DEVI (BY,SRI.,H,C,VRUSHABHENDRAIAH,,ADVOCATE), Location: , HIGH0COURT AND:( OF (KARNATAKA

1., SMT,RATHNAMMA, W/O,LATE,H,M,SHIVANANJAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,54,YEARS,, ,

2., H,S,SHASHIDHAR, S/O,LATE,H,M,SHIVANANJAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,36,YEARS,, , BOTH,ARE,RESIDING,AT,, NC:(2026:KHC:5576( MFA(No.(4497(of(2017( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( VENAKAYYANACHATHRA,VILLAGE,, HARADANAHALLI,HOBLI,, CHAMARAJANAGAR,, TALUK,AND,DISTRICT, ,

3., R,R,SURESH, S/O,LATE,RAJU, RESIDING,AT,NOI.195/1, NEAR,PEEPUL,TREE,, RAJAGHATTA,HASSAN, (OWNER,OF,THE,LORRY, BEARING,REGISTRATION, NO.AP-21-X-1332), , …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI.,VEERABHADRA,SWAMY,H,P,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,&,R2, ,,R3,IS,SERVED,AND,UNREPRESENTED), , , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S,173(1),OF,MV,ACT,AGAINST,THE, JUDGMENT,AND,AWARD,DATED,24.11.2016,,PASSED,IN,MVC, NO.101/2016,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,PRINCIPAL,DISTRICT,AND, SESSIONS, JUDGE, AND, MACT,, AT, CHAMARAJANAGAR,, AWARDING, COMPENSATION, OF, RS., 6,78,000/-, WITH, INTEREST, AT, 6, PERCENT, P.A.,FROM, THE, DATE, OF,PETITION, TILL,THE,DATE,OF,REALIZATION., , , THIS,APPEAL,,COMING,ON,FOR,ADMISSION,,THIS,DAY,, JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,C.M.,POONACHA, ,

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶1The present appeal is filed by the insurer assailing the judgment and award dated 24.11.2016 passed in MVC No.101/2016 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Chamarajanagar1.

¶2The impugned judgment and award is assailed primarily on the ground that insured vehicle did not have a fitness certificate as also on the ground that the finding of contributory negligence made by the Tribunal is erroneous.

¶3Having regard to the Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of the Legal Claim Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. Smt.Laxmavva & Ors.,2 and The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. Kumara & Ors.,3 wherein it has been held that the absence of the fitness certificate is not a ground to exonerate the insurer

1 hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' 2 MFA Nos.100858/2022 c/w 103047/2022, Decided on 19.11.2025 3 MFA Nos.7792/2015 c/w 6449/2015, Decided on 21.12.2020

from payment of compensation, the said contention of insurer does not merit consideration.

¶4With regard to the finding of contributory negligence, it is noticed that the Tribunal has adequately appreciated the manner of occurrence of the accident. It has been noticed that when the deceased was proceeding on his TVC Moped, and had given indication to take a turn, the insured lorry being driven in a rash and negligent manner came and hit the moped. The eye witness was examined as PW2. The criminal case was lodged against the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal has adequately appreciated the manner of occurrence of the accident to hold that the driver of lorry was negligent to the extent of 90% and deceased was negligent to the extent of 10%. No ground is made out by the appellant (insurer of the lorry) to interfere with said finding of negligence as held by the Tribunal.

¶5The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that although at the time of filing of appeal, it has been contended that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side, having regard to the passage of time and keeping in mind the recent trend of judgments with regard to enhancement of compensation, he does not press the contention that the quantum of compensation awarded is on the higher side.

¶6In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the above appeal is dismissed.

¶7The amount deposited by the appellant be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

Vmb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13