NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56708
MFA No. 1684 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010206452015




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1684 OF 2015(MV-I)


BETWEEN:


NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE
MELAGIRI PLAZA
DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD
MCC BLOCK, DAVANAGERE
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.


…APPELLANT

(BY SRI H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

AND:








1. MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH
S/O. RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/O. II STAGE,
SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY
BADAWANE, DAVANAGERE.

2. MANJUNATHA M.
S/O M.S. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O. II MAIN, 13TH CROSS
KTJ NAGAR, DAVANAGERE
(RIDER OF BIKE NO.KA 17 EG 1363).

3. JESUDAS
S/O SUSAIRAJ
ADULT
NEAR NITUVALI MAIN ROAD


Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56708
MFA No. 1684 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010206452015



K.T.J. NAGAR, DAVANAGERE
(OWNER OF BIKE NO.KA 17 EG 1363).


…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. YATISH J. NADIG, ADVOCATE FOR R.1;
R.2: NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 15.06.2023 NOTICE
TO R.3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF M.V.ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.11.2014,
PASSED IN MVC NO.883/2012 BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL III, DAVANAGERE, CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 13.11.2014
passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge and
Member, MACT-III, Davanagere ( Tribunal ) in
M.V.C.no.883/2012, this appeal is filed.
2. Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for appellant
submits that appeal filed by insurer challenging finding on
liability.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56708
MFA No. 1684 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010206452015



3. Brief facts leading to this appeal, as per claimant,
that on 03.08.2012, at about 01:30 p.m. when claimant
Manjappa, was riding motorcycle bearing No.KA-17/EF-9138 on
Hadadi Road, rider of motorcycle No.KA-17/EG-1363 rode same
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant's
motor cycle causing accident. Despite treatment at SSIMS
Hospital, Davanagere and Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru,
claimant did not fully recover and sustained loss of earning
capacity. Claiming compensation, he filed claim petition under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation
from insurer of motor cycle No.KA-17/EG- 1363.
4. Though rider and owner entered appearance
through a common counsel, they did not file objections to claim
petition. Insurer alone filed objection, denying claim as false,
frivolous and vexatious disputing that accident occurred due to
negligence of claimant and compensation claimed was
excessive.
5. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following
issues:
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that alleged
accident has occurred due to rash ad negligent

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56708
MFA No. 1684 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010206452015



riding of the motor cycle No.KA-17/EG-1363 by
respondent No.1 and that he has sustained severe
injuries and the same have caused him permanent
disablement?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, at what rate and from whom?
3. What order or award?"

6. In trial, claimant examined himself as PW.1 and
Dr.Manoj Kumar as PW.2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P21. In
rebuttal, Dr.G.Shivaprakasha and Dr.Rangaswamy were
examined as RWs'-1 and 2 respectively, owner of motor cycle
was examined as RW-3 and official of insurer was examined as
RW-4 and got marked Exhibits R1 to R6.
7. On consideration, Tribunal answered issues no.1
and 2 in affirmative and issue no.3 by assessing total
compensation of Rs.1,38,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
and held respondents no.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation. Aggrieved thereby, present appeal is filed.
8. It was submitted that accident in question occurred
due to collision between two motor cycles. Insurer did not
dispute occurrence of accident and as per claimant accident
occurred on 03.08.2012 at 01:30 p.m. In accident, not only

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56708
MFA No. 1684 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010206452015



claimant but also rider and pillion rider of insured vehicle
sustained injuries. Immediately after accident, claimant was
taken to SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere, whereas rider, and
pillion rider of insured vehicle were admitted to Bapuji Hospital,
Davanagere.
9. Ex.R2-MLC register extract of Bapuji Hospital,
contains entry pertaining to Manjunath, OP No.77082 & records
that he was admitted at 1:55 p.m. on 03.08.2012, with a
history of injuries sustained while he was sitting on back seat of
a motorcycle at about 1:30 p.m. on same day. Likewise, entry
pertaining to Shankar, OP No.77081, records that he was
admitted at 2:00 p.m. on same day, with history of injuries
sustained in a road traffic accident while he was riding a
motorcycle at about 1:30 p.m. on 03.08.2012.
10. Above entries would indicate that Shankar was
riding motorcycle and Manjunath was travelling as pillion rider.
But, in entire police records as well as objections to claim
petition, respondent no.1 - Manjunath sought to project himself
as rider of motorcycle and Shankar as pillion rider,
apparently in an attempt to avoid repudiation of insurance

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56708
MFA No. 1684 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010206452015



coverage on ground of violation of policy condition. It was
submitted that rider of insured vehicle did not have driving
licence, projected Manjunath as rider.
11. It was further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. GOURABAI AND OTHERS
reported in (2009) 15 SCC 165 assigned sanctity to entries in
medical records since entire medical records were maintained
in course of business. It was contended that observation by
Tribunal that said material cannot be accepted as it was
secondary evidence was contrary to law and sought for
modification.
12. On other hand Sri.Yatish J.Nadig , learned counsel
for respondent no.1/claimant opposed appeal filed by insurer. It
was submitted that even if insurer succeeds in establishing
violation of policy condition by insured, since claimant was a
third party, insurer cannot escape liability and at best could
seek for modification of award to one of pay and recovery. On
said ground sought for dismissal.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56708
MFA No. 1684 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010206452015



13. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award and material on record.
14. From above and since insurer is in appeal challenging
finding on liability, point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether impugned finding on liability in
impugned award calls for modification?"

15. Same is answered party in affirmative for following-
REASONS
16. In claim petition, claimant arrayed not only owner
and insurer of vehicle, but also Manjunath by describing him as
rider. In objections, insurer denied accident by Manjunath.
17. In trial, insurer examined two Doctors, namely,
G.Shivaprakasha and Rangaswamy as RWs.1 and 2. In their
deposition, RW.1 produced Discharge Summary of Shankar. In
history of injuries column in discharge summary, occurrence of
accident was stated to be due to skid of motorcycle (though
reference is to insured vehicle).
18. RW.2 Dr.Rangaswamy deposed about entries in MLC
Register marked as Exs.R2 and R3. As rightly submitted,
perusal of entry insofar as Shankar would reveal in history of
injuries column that accident was due to fall from bike, while

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56708
MFA No. 1684 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010206452015



Shankar was rider. And record of Manjunath show injuries due
to road traffic accident ( RTA ), while Manjunath was pillion
rider. However, Manjunath deposing as RW.3 sought to claim
that he was rider of motorcycle. In his cross-examination, he
admits suggestion that in criminal case he pleaded guilty and
paid fine. In cross-examination of RW.3, suggestions about
Manjunath being pillion rider are denied.
19. While passing impugned award, reasoning of
tribunal for fastening liability on insurer is that contents of
Exs.R2 and R3 would be secondary evidence, whereas,
deposition of respondent no.1 would be primary evidence. Said
observation would be contrary to tenets of evidentiary value.
Reference by respondent no.1, examined as RW.3, would be in
first person and in case of RWs.1 and 2 it would be in second
person. But distinction stops here. It is settled law that
documentary evidence would weigh over oral evidence and in
cross-examination nothing contrary is elicited. Under above
circumstances, finding of tribunal insofar as liability would be
perverse. But, same would not affect award insofar as claimant
is concerned.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56708
MFA No. 1684 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010206452015



20. Consequently, following:
ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part , judgment and award dated
13.11.2014 passed by II Additional District and
Sessions Judge and Member, MACT-III, Davanagere,
in M.V.C.no.883/2012 stands modified only to extent
of holding insurer liable to pay compensation with
interest to claimant in first place and thereafter be at
liberty to recover it from insured without need for
separate proceedings.

ii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to
tribunal for disbursal.

iii. Balance amount to be deposited before tribunal within
six weeks.

iv. On deposit, entire compensation with interest is
ordered to be released in favour of claimant by
electronic means.

Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE

VMB/HNM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9