Legal Manager v. K P Ashraf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6468 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN:

LEGAL MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GIC LTD CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER SRI SHANTHI TOWERS 5TH FLOOR, NO.141, 3RD MAIN EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT KASTURBANAGAR BANGALORE-560 043 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1K P ASHRAF S/O K P IBRAHIM NOW AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶2ZUBEIDA W/O K P ASHRAF NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

ALL ARE R/AT NO.7-12/13 SHEEBA MANZIL 7TH BLOCK KRISHNAPURA SURATHKAL MANGALORE

¶3MOHAMMED MUBASHIR S/O HASANABBA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2025:KHC:52999( MFA(No.(6468(of(2021( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( R/AT,D,NO.1-68,SURINJE,POST, MANGALURU-575030, ,

4., C,KANAGARASU, S/O,CHINNU,SAMY, AGED,ABOUT,46,YEARS,, R/AT,NO.7,R,C,COMPLEX, 206-261,S,G,MUTT,ROAD, CHAMARAJ,PET,, BENGALURU-560018, ,

5., THE,NATIONAL,INSURANCE,, COMPANY,LTD.,, DIVISIONAL,OFFICE,-I, 2ND,FLOOR,NO.30, BHARATH,BUILDING, P,M,RAO,ROAD,,MANGALORE, , …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI.,MUZAFFAR,AHMED.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,AND,R2;, R3,IS,SERVED,AND,UNREPRESENTED;, V/O,DTD,08/11/2024,,NOTICE,TO,R4,IS,D/W;, SRI.,A.M.VENKATESH,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R5;), , , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S,173(1),OF,MV,ACT,AGAINST,THE, JUDGMENT,AND,AWARD,DATED,18.11.2020,,PASSED,IN,MVC, NO.1833/2017,,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,MACT-II,,I,ADDITIONAL, DISTRICT, AND, SESSIONS, JUDGE,, D.K., MANGALURU, D.K,, AWARDING, COMPENSATION, OF, RS.11,30,720/-, WITH, INTEREST, AT, 6, PERCENT,P.A., FROM,THE, DATE, OF,PETITION, TILL,ITS,DEPOSIT,IN,THE,TRIBUNAL.,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , THIS, APPEAL,, COMING, ON, FOR, FINAL, HEARING,, THIS, DAY,,JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:,

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Appeal is filed by the Insurer/Respondent No.2 against the judgment and award dated 18.11.2020 in MVC.No.1833/2017 passed by the I Additional District Judge and II Additional MACT, Mangaluru D. K.

¶2Heard the arguments of learned advocates for appellant as well as respondents No.1 and 5.

¶3The only grievance of the insurer of the offending motorcycle is that the accident had occurred due to the contributory negligence of rider of the motorcycle as well as driver of the lorry. However, the Tribunal has erroneously appreciated the evidence and fastened the entire liability on the rider as well as insurer of the offending motorcycle. The said accident occurred either due to contributory negligence of driver of the lorry and rider of motor cycle; or in the alternative due to negligence of driver of the lorry. The said finding is erroneous. Hence, prayed to interfere in the said finding.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5/Insurer of the lorry vehemently contends that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and has rightly held that accident had occurred due to negligence of rider of the motorcycle and driver of the lorry had no role in causing the accident. PW.2 in his cross examination has further stated that the rear right side wheel of the lorry ran over the deceased. There was no reason to hold that the driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident. He had no opportunity to avoid the accident. Had the rider of the motorcycle taken proper care and caution, he could have avoided the same. Considering these facts, the Tribunal has rightly directed the owner and insurer of the motorcycle to pay the compensation.

¶5On re-appreciation of the materials available on record, the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.5 is tenable. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal elaborately discussed this point in Issue No.1 and rightly came to conclusion that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and not due to negligence of driver of the lorry. The charge sheet and its enclosures as well as evidence of PW.2, who is an eyewitness, clearly reveals that

the driver of the lorry was not at all responsible for the incident and it was beyond his control. Therefore, the grounds of appeal are not tenable and submission of learned counsel for appellant is not acceptable. Therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed as a devoid of merits. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Whatever amount deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgment along with the TCR to Tribunal.

Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24