ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LITD. vs LAKSHMAMMA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61311
MFA No. 3542 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010098642014



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3542 OF 2014(MV-D)

BETWEEN:

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
D.O.10, CHENNAI, DWARAKA,
II FLOOR, NO.79,
UTHAMARGANDHI,
SALAI, CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU - 600 034,
REPRESENTED BY
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S.COMPLEX,
SUBHASH CHOWK, HASSAN.

BY ORIENTAL INSRUANCE CO. LTD.,
ND
REGIONAL OFFICE, 2 FLOOR,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX,
LRMINGTON ROAD,
HUBLI - 580 020.
BY ITS MANAGER.

…APPELLANT










Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

(BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
W/O RAJEGOWDA @ RAJU,

2. MOHAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O RAJEGOWDA @ RAJU,

3. RAJASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O RAJEGOWDA @ RAJU,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61311
MFA No. 3542 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010098642014


ALL ARE RESIDENT OF
CHAMPAKANAGAR,
SAKALESHPURA TOWN.

4. N. ABDULLA
MAJOR,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,

4(a) SALEEL,
S/O LATE ABDULLA,
MAJOR, MEGALAKOPPALU,
KUSHALNAGAR EXTENSION,
SAKALESHSLURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

4(b) SHAKEEL
S/O LATE ABDULLA,
MAJOR,

4(c) SAFIA
W/O ABDULLA,
MAJOR,

4(d) SUHEEL
S/O LATE ABDULLA,
MAJOR,

ALL ARE FIDA ELECTRONICS,
IN FRONT OF OLD BUS STAND,
SAKALESHPUR TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

…RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI PRAKASH M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R4(a)- R4(d) - NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.74/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC,
MACT, SAKLESHPUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,52,000/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61311
MFA No. 3542 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010098642014


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 15.02.2014
passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, MACT, Sakleshpur
(‘ Tribunal ’) in MVC no.74/2009, this appeal is filed.


2. Sri O. Mahesh, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by insurer challenging award on
ground of liability.


3. Brief facts leading to this appeal as per claimants
were that at 11:45 pm on 28.02.2008 when claimant no.1 son
Manjunath @ Madhu was traveling in Lorry no.KA-46-450 from
Bangalore towards Hassan as a loader and it was near
Dyamasandra Gate, its driver drove it in rash and negligent
manner and dashed against another Mini Lorry no.KA-18-8804
caused accident. In accident, Manjunath sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to same at Adhichunchanagiri Hospital.
Alleging loss of dependency on account of his sudden death,
claimants i.e. deceased mother and brothers filed claim petition
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘ MV Act ’)
against owner and insurer of Lorry.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61311
MFA No. 3542 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010098642014



4. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all grounds including insurer denying deceased Manjunath
travelling in insured vehicle as an employee, alleging violation
of terms and conditions of policy and claim petition being
exorbitant.


5. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following:
ISSUES:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Manjunath @
Madhu S/o Rajegowda died due to the accident
alleged to have taken place on 28.02.2008 at
about 11.45 p.m. on N.H.48, B.M.Road, near
Belluru at Dyamasandra Gate and that the said
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the Lorry bearing no.KA-46-450 by its
driver?

2. What was the age, occupation and income of the
deceased at the time of accident?

3. Whether the respondent no.1 proves that the
driver of the offending vehicle having valid and
effective driving licence at the time of accident?

4. Whether the respondent no.2 proves that the
owner of the vehicle violated the terms and
conditions of the policy?

5. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount? And from
whom?


6. What award or order?


6. Claimant no.1 deposed as PW.1 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of respondents, owner of lorry and

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61311
MFA No. 3542 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010098642014


official of insurer deposed as RWs.1 and 2 and got marked
Exs.R1 to R3.


7. On consideration, Tribunal answered issues no.1
and 3 in affirmative; issue no.4 in negative and issues no.2, 5
and 6 by assessing total compensation of Rs.3,52,000/- and
holding insurer liable to pay same with interest at 6% per
annum. Dissatisfied with same, appeal was filed.


8. It was also submitted that in objections filed by
respondent no.1, there was denial of allegations made in claim
petition and same was also noted by Tribunal. It was submitted
that though deceased Manjunath was stated to be travelling in
Lorry as a cleaner/loader, Ex-R2 - statement given before
police would indicate that on date of accident, Manjunath along
with another had accompanied driver of Lorry as his friends
intending to go to Sakleshpur and not as employee. It was
further submitted that even general denial of entire claim
petition averments in objections filed by owner of Lorry would
also would inure or substantiate contention of insurer. It was
submitted that insurance policy issued cover risk of owner and
did not cover risk of employee. It was submitted that in

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61311
MFA No. 3542 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010098642014


absence of contract of insurance, fastening of liability on
insurer as done by Tribunal would not be justified and sought
for setting aside award.


9. On other hand, Sri Prakash M Patil, learned counsel
for respondents no.1 to 3 - claimants would oppose appeal. It
was submitted that while passing award, Tribunal had referred
to contention of insurer and referring to admission of
relationship employer and employee in objections filed by
owner, held claimant entitled for compensation from insurer.
On said ground sought for dismissal.


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


11. From above and since only insurer is in appeal
challenging finding of Tribunal on liability, sole point that would
arise for consideration is:
"Whether Tribunal was justified in fastening
liability on insurer to pay compensation?"


12. To establish actionable negligence against insurer,
in instant case claimant relied on prosecution records namely
FIR, complaint and charge sheet would reveal that complaint

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61311
MFA No. 3542 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010098642014


was filed by driver of Mini Lorry. In view of above, averments in
complaint would not be relevant for purposes of establishing
relationship of employer and employee. There are no specific
records produced to establish employment. However, claimant
has consistently described himself to be employee of Lorry and
there is general denial of claim petition averments but there is
specific assertion in para-4 of objections and para-3 of affidavit
examination-in-chief as follows:
"… … The averments made in para 22 of the
petition that on 28-2-2008 at about 11-45 pm the
st
son of the 1 petitioner was coming as a loader
from Bangalore towards Hassan in a vehicle
bearing no.KA-46-450 is true."


13. Indeed, contents of Ex.R2, alleged statement given
by one Kiran inmate of Lorry in question in course of police
investigation indicate that Manjunath was travelling in Lorry as
his friend and not as an employee, however, statement
recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, would not be substantive
evidence by itself and there is no confrontation of Ex.R2 to
RW.1. In view of above, there is some material on record to
support conclusion about Manjunath was travelling in Lorry as
an employee of owner at time of accident.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61311
MFA No. 3542 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010098642014



14. While passing impugned award, Tribunal has in fact
adverted to material and arrived at conclusion that insurer had
failed to establish that Manjunath was not travelling in Lorry as
employee. Merely on ground of another view is possible,
findings of Tribunal cannot be reversed. More so, when there is
some basis for conclusion and is arrived at by referring to
entire material on record.


15. In view of above, appeal is devoid of merit and is
dismissed
accordingly . Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal for disbursement. Insurer is directed to
deposit balance compensation amount, if any, before Tribunal
within six weeks from today. On deposit, entire compensation
amount is ordered to be released in favour of claimant.


Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE


GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24