ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD vs SMT H KALPANA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59912
MFA No. 8255 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010415212013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8255 OF 2013 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD.,
NO.89, SVR COMPLEX,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
MADIWALA, BANGALORE - 68.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. H. KALPANA
W/O LATE TULASI RAMPRASAD,
NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by ASHWINI
MAYAPPA
MAVARAKAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
2. SRI. T. VINAYA PRASAD
S/O LATE TULASI RAMPRASAD,
NOW AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,
3. MASTER T. SUJITH PRASAD
S/O LATE TULASI RAMPRASAD,
NOW AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,
4. SRI. SHANKAR PRASAD
S/O LATE BALAJI PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59912
MFA No. 8255 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010415212013
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.22/1,
SRIKRISHNA NILAYA, 6TH CROSS,
DIVANARAPALYA, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE - 560 054.
5. T. GANESH
MAJOR,
R/O NAMBIHALLI VILLAGE,
SHIVAPURA POST,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. GOPALA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. G.C. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.8657/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
MEMBER MACT-3, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.8,96,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59912
MFA No. 8255 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010415212013
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 07.06.2013
passed by VII Additional Judge, Member, MACT-3,
Bangalore (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.8657/2010, this
appeal is filed by Insurance Company.
2. Sri A N Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for
appellant submitted that appeal was filed by insurer
challenging award on question of liability, mainly on
ground of non-involvement of insured vehicle in accident
and false implication.
3. Brief facts as per claimants, were that at 08:00
p.m. on 11.08.2010, Tulasi Ramprasad was riding
motorcycle bearing no.KA-04-EV-2713 on NH-4 near Core-
in-School, Vadagur Gate when driver of scorpio Jeep
no.KA-07-M-2300 drove it in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against motorcycle from opposite side. In
accident, Tulasi Ramprasad sustained fatal injuries and
died. Alleging loss of dependency on account of his death,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59912
MFA No. 8255 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010415212013
wife, children and father of deceased filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of MV Act against owner and insurer of
Jeep. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all grounds, including denial of involvement of vehicle in
accident, Tribunal framed following issues:
"1. Do the petitioners prove that Tulasi
Ramprasad died in an accident arising out of
rashness/negligence of the driver of the
Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No.KA-
07-M-2300 as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are
LRs of the deceased Tulasi Ramprasad?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
4. What Order or Award?"
4. Claimant no.1 and an eyewitness and deposed
as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. Owner
deposed as RW.1 and official of insurer deposed as RW.2
and Exs.R1 to R7 were marked.
5. On consideration, Tribunal held issues no.1 and
2 in affirmative and issue no.3 partly in affirmative by

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59912
MFA No. 8255 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010415212013
holding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of insured vehicle by its driver and that claimants
were entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,96,000/- with
interest at 8% per annum from respondents no.1 and 2
jointly and severally. Aggrieved by said findings, insurer in
appeal.
6. At outset, it was submitted that accident in
question allegedly occurred at 08:00 p.m. on 11.08.2010,
however, complaint was filed on next day. Though vehicle
number was mentioned in complaint, after investigation
police filed a C-report as per Ex.R1, specifically stating
that there was sufficient material to indicate that insured
vehicle was at a different place from accident spot and not
involved in accident. Despite same, while passing
impugned order, observation of Tribunal that insured
vehicle was found at accident spot while conducting spot
mahazar was contrary to record and, therefore, finding of
Tribunal was liable to be set aside. On said ground,
learned counsel sought for allowing appeal.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59912
MFA No. 8255 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010415212013
7. On other hand, Sri A.N. Gopal Krishna, learned
counsel for respondents no.1 to 4, opposed appeal.
8. In order to establish actionable negligence
against owner and insurer of offending vehicle, claimants
relied on police investigation records, namely, FIR,
complaint, spot mahazar and Motor Vehicle Inspector's
report, marked as Exs.P1 to P3. Complaint was filed by
brother of deceased on receipt of information from one
Ramesh, examined as PW.2. In terms of complaint, FIR
was registered.
9. It was further submitted that wife of owner of
offending vehicle was admittedly Vice President of Zilla
Panchayath and had used political influence, leading to
police filing C-report. At time of passing award, Tribunal
had appreciated material on record in proper perspective
and fastened liability upon owner and insurer. Therefore,
there was no merit in appeal and sought for dismissal.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59912
MFA No. 8255 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010415212013
10. Heard learned counsel for parties. Perused
impugned judgment, award and record.
11. From above and since appeal by insurer is on
sole ground of false implication of insured vehicle for
purpose of claim, point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that
insured vehicle caused accident and that claimants
were entitled to compensation from owner/insurer?
To establish actionable negligence against owner and
insurer of offending vehicle, claimants relied on FIR
and complaint, spot mahazar, MVA report and
inquest report, which are marked as Exs.P1 to P4?"
12. Perusal of compliant would reveal that it was
given day after accident in question and complaint does
mention that it was based on information received from
one Ramesh about accident having been caused by a
Mahindra scorpio vehicle bearing registration no.KA-07-M-
2300. Ex.P1- FIR is registered based on said complaint, In
spot mahazar drawn in next day, it is recorded that
offending vehicle did not stop at accident spot after
accident. Motor Vehicle Inspector's report at Ex.P3 would

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59912
MFA No. 8255 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010415212013
not record any damages on insured vehicle. As rightly
submitted by learned counsel for respondents-claimants,
Motor Vehicle Inspector's inspection is on 13.09.2010
more than a month after accident and there would be
some scope for contending that vehicle could have been
got repaired by them. But no specific material is placed on
record to establish same. Suggestions to said effect are
denied by owner of vehicle examined as RW.1.
13. When Ex.P2 spot mahazar specifically records
that offending vehicle had not stopped at accident spot
after accident, finding of Tribunal that offending vehicle
was available at accident spot at time of mahazar would
be contrary to record.
14. Moreover, Ex.R2-final report would indicate that
it is based on C-report, marked as Ex.R1. In course of
investigation, police had found sufficient material to
indicate that Mahindra Scorpio belonging to respondent

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59912
MFA No. 8255 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010415212013
No.1 was not at accident spot but was parked in front of
his house, which would substantiate an alibi.
15. C-report would also refer to a complaint filed
against PW.2. Status of investigation and prosecution in
that regard is not clarified. In case it were contention of
claimants that respondent no.1 had used political influence
to subvert investigation/prosecution, they ought to have
examined Investigating Officer before Tribunal, even if
they had not challenged C-report.
16. On other hand, there are suggestions and
counter-suggestions based on which claimants seek to
cast a shadow of suspicion on respondent no.1 on ground
that his wife was Vice President of Zilla Panchayath to
imply political influence and failure to explain why PW.2
himself did not file a police complaint. There is also delay
in filing complaint which would cast claimants' version
under suspicion.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59912
MFA No. 8255 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010415212013
17. Under above circumstances, based on
inconclusive material, Tribunal would not be justified in
fastening liability on insurer. However, since it is a death
claim, it is found appropriate to provide an opportunity to
claimants to establish their claim and hence, answering
point for consideration in favour of appellant/insurer in
part, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed-in-part .
ii. Impugned judgment and award dated
07.06.2013 passed by VII Additional Judge,
Member, MACT-3, Bangalore in MVC
no.8657/2010, is hereby set aside.
iii. Matter is remitted back to Tribunal for fresh
consideration, reserving liberty to claimants to
examine Investigating Officer or any other
person who is an eyewitness to establish

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59912
MFA No. 8255 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010415212013
actionable negligence against owner and
insurer.
iv. Since matter is of some vintage and parties are
represented, they are directed to appear before
Tribunal without need for fresh summons on
02.12.2026.
v. Registry is directed to refund amount in deposit
to appellant electronically.
vi. Registry is directed to remit trial Court records
to Tribunal to reach it well before said date.
vii. Parties are directed to cooperate for early
conclusion and MACT is directed to expedite
proceedings.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
TMP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6