Smt Bhavani v. Sri Kummetha Veera Reddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4137 OF 2022(MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 44 OF 2025 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 4137/2022 BETWEEN:

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GIC LTD UNIT NO. 4, 9TH FLOOR LEVEL -06, GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX 59TH 'C' CROSS INDUSTRIAL SUBURB RAJAJINAGAR, 4TH M BLOCK BENGALURU-10 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MURALIDHARA N, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. SMT BHAVANI W/O KOTI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

2. MASTER PAVAN S/O KOTI AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS

¶3SMT. LAKSHMAMMA MADHAPPA W/O MADHAPPA by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42511 MFA(No.(4137(of(2022 C/W(MFA.CROB(No.(44(of(2025 CNR:(KAHC010246392022 AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS, RESPONDENT,NO.2,IS,MINOR, HENCE,REPRESENTED,BY,HER, MOTHER,BEING,NATURAL,GUARDIAN, ALL,ARE,RESIDING,AT,, AREPALYA,VILLAGE, KASABA,HOBLI,, KUNIGAL,TALUK, TUMKUR,DISTRIDCT-563,135,

4., SRI.,KUMMETHA,VEERA,REDDY, S/O,KUMMETHA,SURYANARAYANA,REDDY, MAJOR,IN,AGE,,R/O,3-200,,MAIN,ROAD,, BHOGALAKATTA,,YADIGI,,ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA,PRADESH-515,455, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,RAGHU,R,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,TO,R3,, ,,,,,,R2,MINOR,REP.,BY,R1), , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S,173(1),OF,MV,ACT,AGAINST,THE, JUDGMENT,AND,AWARD,DATED,02.03.2022,,,PASSED,IN,MVC, NO., 7995/2019, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, I, ADDITIONAL, SMALL, CAUSES, JUDGE, AND, MACT,, BENGALURU, (SCCH-11),,,,,,, AWARDING, COMPENSATION, OF, RS., 28,15,668/-, WITH, INTEREST, AT, 6,PERCENT,P.A.,FROM, THE, DATE,OF,PETITION, TILL,THE,DATE,OF,REALIZATION., IN(MFA.CROB(NO.(44/2025 BETWEEN:

1., SMT,BHAVANI, W/O,KOTI., NOW,AGED,ABOUT,28,YEARS,,

2., MASTER,PAVAN., S/O,KOTI,,NOW,AGED,ABOUT,10,YEARS,, e -e3e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42511 MFA(No.(4137(of(2022 C/W(MFA.CROB(No.(44(of(2025 CNR:(KAHC010246392022 APPELLANT,NO.2,IS,MINORS,,, REP,BY,N/G,MOTHER,I.E.,APPELLANT,NO.1.,

3., SMT.,LAKSHMAMMA,MADHAPPA,, W/O,KOTI,,, NOW,AGED,ABOUT,28,YEARS,,, ALL,ARE,R/A,AREPALYA,HOBLI,,, KASABA,HOBLI,,KUNIGAL,TALUK,, TUMAKUR,DIST., ...CROSS,OBJECTORS (BY,SRI.,RAGHU,R,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., SRI,KUMMETHA,VEERA,REDDY, MAJOR,,S/O,KUMMETHA,SURYANARAYANA,REDDY,,, R/O,3-200,,MAIN,ROAD,,BHOGALAKTTA,,YADIKI,, ANANTAPUR,,ANDHAR,PRADESH-51545,

2., THE,MANAGER,, CHOLA,M.S.,GEN.,INS,CO.,LTD.,,, THUNIT,NO.,04,,9 ,FLOOR,,LEVEL-06,,, THGOLDEN,HEIGHTS,COMPLEX,,59 ,C,CROSS,, INDUSTRIAL,SUBURB,,RAJAJINAGAR,,, TH4 ,M,BLOCK,,BANGALURU-560,010, ...RESPONDENTS (BY,SRI.,MURALIDHARA,N,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2), ,,,,,,,THIS,MFA,CROB,IS,FILED,UNDER,ORDER,41,RULE,22, R/W, SECTION, AGAINST, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DATED,,02.03.2021,PASSED,IN,,MVC,NO.,7995/2019,ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, , I, ADDITIONAL, SMALL, CAUSES, JUDGE, MACT,, BENGALURU, SCCH-11,, ALLOWING, THE, CLAIM, PETITION, FOR, COMPENSATION, AND, SEEKING, ENHANCEMENT,OF,COMPENSATION. , THESE,APPEALS,,COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:,

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT

¶1While the insurer preferred MFA.No.4137/2022, the claimants preferred MFA.Cross Objection No.44/2025 against the judgment and award dated 02.03.2021 passed in MVC.No.7995/2019 by the Tribunal.

¶2The factual matrix of the case is that, on 09.11.2019 at about 9.45 p.m., when one Koti was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA04-EL-2127 from Kunigal side and proceeding towards Maddur, he dashed against he lorry bearing registration No.AP-02-TC-3393 being parked by its driver in the middle of the road without any indicators, signals or any precautionary measures, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Thereafter, his legal representatives filed claim petition claiming compensation.

¶3The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, has awarded a sum of Rs.28,15,668/- as compensation along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of

petition till its realisation. Aggrieved by which, both the insurer and the claimants are before this Court.

¶4Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.

¶5Learned counsel for the insurer would contend that in the spot mahazar drawn as per Ex.P3, the investigation officer has mentioned that damaged spare parts of the vehicle were lying on the left side of the road, which clearly indicates that the offending vehicle was stationed on the left side of the road. As such, the Tribunal has erred in saddling entire liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle. He would also contend that the compensation awarded under all the heads is exorbitant. Accordingly, he would pray for allowing of the appeal of the insurer.

¶6On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and saddled the liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle. Further, he would contend that the Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation under all the

heads, which requires to be enhanced by this Court. Accordingly, he would pray for allowing of the cross objection.

¶7I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. On careful perusal of the investigation papers i.e., Exs.P1 to 9, it is seen that the offending vehicle was stationed in the middle of the road. The sketch also depicts the said aspect. Further, the insurance company has not examined the driver of the offending lorry and that the charge sheet laid against the driver of the offending lorry is not seriously contested by examining the investigation officer. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in recording the finding that the lorry was stationed in the middle of the road and consequently, justified in holding that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of driver of offending lorry.

¶8As regards quantum of compensation awarded, on careful perusal of entire evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal, on examination of entire evidence on record, has rightly awarded the just compensation. As such, no

good ground made out by the claimants to enhance the compensation. Accordingly, appeal filed by the insurer and the cross objection filed by the claimants, lack merit. Consequently, they are dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16