REGIONAL MANAGER vs SMT. MOKI BAI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58605
MFA No. 2706 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010503932015



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2706 OF 2015(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

REGIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD,
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM
COMPLEX, 144, M G ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.

POLICY ISSUED AT
NATIONAL INSURNACE CO LTD,
NO.17-3-654/B, MOHSIN BUILDING,
OPP RTC BUS STAND, PENUKONDA
ROAD, HINDURPUR, ANANTHAPUR,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 201.
…APPELLANT









(BY SRI A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RENUKA PRASANNA S., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
AND:

1. SMT. MOKI BAI
W/O VENNARAM,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
JAYARAMAPPA COMPOUND,
NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
MATHIKERE,
BENGALURU - 560 054.

2. ABDUL HAKEEM
S/O MOHD HUSMAN SAB,
MAJOR,
RD
R/AT # 15, 3 MAIN,
KALI TEMPLE ROAD,
SUBEDAR PALYA,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58605
MFA No. 2706 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010503932015


YESHWANTHPUR
BENGALURU - 560 022.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/C/O DATED 11.06.2018 NOTICE TO R2 IS H/S)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC
TH
NO.4250/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 20 ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION
OF RS.25,000/- WITH INTEREST @ RS.2,55,000/- WITH INTEREST @
8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION OF THE
AMOUNT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING , THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 28.11.2014
passed by Member-MACT & XX ASCJ, Bengaluru in MVC
no.4250/2012, this appeal is filed.


2. Sri AN Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for
appellant submitted that this appeal was by insurer challenging
impugned award on liability, negligence as well on quantum.


3. Brief facts leading to this appeal as per claimant are
that at 10:45 p.m. on 14.02.2012, when claimant was pillion

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58605
MFA No. 2706 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010503932015


rider on a Moped no.KA-04-HF-9634 with her husband and
minor son on Sanjaynagar main road, driver of Car no.KA-04-
MF-5043 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed
against Moped causing accident. Despite treatment at MS
Ramaiah Memorial Hospital, she did not recover fully and
sustained loss of earning capacity and filed claim petition under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( MV Act ) against
insurer and owner of Car. Despite service of notice, owner did
not appear and was placed ex-parte . Only insurer opposed
claim on all grounds including alleging violation of terms and
conditions of policy by driver of Car, disputing negligence,
alleging contributing negligence, etc.


4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following
issues:
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that on
14.02.2012 at about 10.45 p.m. near Parata
Plaza, Ashwathnagar cross, Sanjaynagar i10
bearing No.KA-04-MF-5043 drove the same
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against TVS Heavy Duty Motor cycle bearing
No.KA-04-HF-9634, in which she was
travelling as a pillion rider, fell down and
sustained injuries?

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58605
MFA No. 2706 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010503932015


2. Whether the petitioner is entitled fro
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?

3. What order or award?"


5. Claimant examined herself and Dr.Sandeep Reddy
R., as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P16. Insurer
examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Exhibits R1 to R6.


6. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in
affirmative, issues no.2 and 3 by assessing total compensation
of Rs.2,55,000/- with interest at 8% per annum and holding
owner and insurer jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation.


7. It was submitted that accident occurred when
claimant along with her husband and child were riding on a
moped. Carriage of two pillion riders on a moped would be in
violation of Rule 143(3) of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules,
2025. It was further submitted that accident occurred virtually
in middle of road. Therefore, tribunal ought to have
apportioned contribution against rider of moped. On quantum it
was submitted that tribunal had awarded excessive rate of

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58605
MFA No. 2706 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010503932015


interest at 8% p.a. and sought for reduction. On said ground
sought for allowing appeal.


8. On other hand, Sri Renuka Prasanna, advocate
appearing for Sri BJ Mahesh, learned counsel for respondent -
claimant would oppose appeal. It was submitted that claimant
along with respondent and minor child were traveling on moped
and therefore contention that it was violation of Motor Vehicles
Rules and contribution to accident would be unfounded as
second pillion was only a small child. Hence, there was no merit
in insurer's challenge and sought for dismissal.


9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment award and record.


10. From above and since this is insurer's appeal on
liability, negligence and quantum, points that arise for
consideration are:
1. Whether finding of tribunal holding insurer
liable to pay compensation to entire extent calls for
modification?
2. Whether rate of interest awarded by tribunal
calls for modification?

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58605
MFA No. 2706 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010503932015



11. To establish actionable negligence against
respondents, claimant relied on police investigation records
namely, complaint, FIR, accident spot mahazar, rough sketch,
Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, statement of claimant and
charge sheet marked as Exs.P1 to P9 respectively. Perusal of
Ex.P4 - rough sketch of accident spot would indicate that
accident occurred on a 36 ft. wide road with both vehicles
moving in same direction and accident spot being at a distance
of 16 ft. from left side road edge with leaving 20 ft. gap on
right side. Sketch would also indicate that car dashed against
motorcycle from behind by coming on its left side. Manner of
occurrence of accident would indicate that driver of car was
negligent in driving for causing accident. Considering accident
spot being virtually middle of road, contribution by rider of
moped cannot be ruled out. Taking note of fact that moped is a
two wheeler whereas car is a heavier vehicle and duty to drive
it with care and caution would be higher on driver of car, it is
found appropriate to apportion negligence against driver of car
to extent of 90% and against rider of moped to extent of 10%.
Point no.1 is answered accordingly.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58605
MFA No. 2706 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010503932015


Point no.2:

12. Though point no.2 is confined to challenge on rate
of interest, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been consistently
awarding interest at more than 6% p.a. Therefore, award of
interest at 8% p.a. doesn't call for modification. Point no.2 is
answered accordingly.


13. In view of above, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part only insofar as
reduction of contributory negligence
against driver of insured vehicle to 90%
and holding insurer liable to pay
compensation to extent of 90% of award
amount.
(ii) It is clarified that liability of insurer
stands reduced to Rs.2,29,500/- with
interest at 8% p.a. from date of claim
petition till deposit.
(iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal for payment.
Balance if any, to be deposited within six
weeks.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58605
MFA No. 2706 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010503932015


(iv) On deposit, entire compensation with
accrued interest is ordered to be released
in favour of claimant.

Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE




AV, YKL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20