- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200684 OF 2019 (MV-I) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201845 OF 2019 (MV-I) IN MFA NO.200684/2019: BETWEEN: SRI. ARJUN S/O SIDDAPPA CHALAWADI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: MASON, R/O EARLIER AT RONIHAL, NOW RESIDING AT VAZRA HANUMAN NAGAR, BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VITHOBA S/O NEWARTI BHOSALE, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O RONIHAL, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 101. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BEHIND SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, S.S. ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 28.05.2019, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.01.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT- XII, VIJAYAPUR, IN MVC NO.1481/2014. IN MFA NO. 201845/2019: BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BEHIND SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, S.S. ROAD, VIJAYAPUR, DIST. VIJAYAPUR, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS, AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BILGUNDI COMPLEX, STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 102. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ARJUN S/O SIDDAPPA CHALAWADI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: CENTERING WORK/MASON, R/O EARLIER AT RONIHAL, NOW RESIDING AT VAZRA HANUMAN NAGAR, BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. 2. VITHOBA S/O NEWARTI BHOSALE, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL, R/O RONIHAL, TQ. B. BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 210. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADV. FOR R1; R2-SERVED) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN MVC NO.1481/2014 DATED 04.01.2019, PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XII AT VIJAYAPUR. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent-insurance company in both the appeals. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and the award in MVC No.1481/2014 by learned III-Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Vijayapur, the petitioner is before this Court in MFA No.200684/2019 and the Insurance company is before this Court in MFA No.201845/2019. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 3. The parties will be referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that on 03.07.2014 at about 12 noon, when the petitioner was allegedly standing near the Milk diary on the road leading to Ronihal cross from Ronihal village, a motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/EA-8647 came from his hind side and dashed to the petitioner resulting in he sustaining fracture of the proximal tibia, intra-articular fractures on the right knee and a few other minor injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Dr. Kundargi’s Hospital at Vijayapur by his brother and thereafter, on the next day he was shifted to Dr.G.S.Kulkarni Hospital at Miraj and underwent surgeries. The petitioner claims that he was aged 34 years and he was working as centering labourer and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month and due to the accidental injuries he has suffered permanent disability and as such he is entitled for adequate compensation. It was also stated - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 that later he took treatment at Dr. Tanga’s Hospital and underwent knee replacement surgery. 5. On being served with the notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed their written statements. Respondent No.1 in his written statement denied the allegations made and it was denied that accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/EA-8647. It was further contented that his motorcycle was insured with the respondent No.2 and if at all any compensation needs to be paid, the same has to be fastened upon the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 took up similar contentions in its written statement and contented that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and the terms and conditions of the policy were violated. It was further contended that no such accident had occurred and there is a delay in filing the FIR for one day and therefore, its liability to pay the compensation be absolved. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 6. It also filed an additional written statement, after the petition was got amended by the petitioner stating that stating that the police papers show the time of the accident as 2:30 PM on 03.07.2014 but the medical records show the accident to be at 12:00 PM on 3/7/2014 and as such there being the discrepancy, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. On the basis of the above contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and additional issues as below: ISSUES 1) Whether the petitioner proves that, on 03.07.2014 at about 2-30 p.m., petitioner was standing near Milk dairy on the road leading from Ronihal cross to Ronihal villge at Ronihal, Tq: B.Bagewadi by the left side of the road, by that time one motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/EA-8647 came from Ronihal cross side, being ridden b its rider in high speed, rash and negligent manner speed, unable to control over his - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 motorcycle, ridden abruptly, dashed to the bicycle and caused accident, petitioner sustained fractural injuries? 2) Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 3) What order or award? ADDL. ISSUE 1) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, due to violation of policy conditions, they are not liable to pay compensation? 8. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and the Doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2, and exhibit P1 to 19 were marked. The official of the respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 and 2 were marked in evidence. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred involving the motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 and awarded a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 compensation of Rs.3,58,600/- under different heads as below: Injury, Pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/- Medical expenses Rs.1,73,400/- Loss of income due to permanent physical disability Rs.1,15,200/- Food and nourishment Rs.10,000/- Attendant charges Rs.10,000/- Conveyance charges Rs.10,000/- Loss of amenities and future unhappiness. Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.3,58,600/- 9. Being aggrieved by the same the insurance company as well as the petitioner have approached this Court in these appeals. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company would submit that the discrepancy regarding the time of the accident in the medical records vis-a vis the police records go to the root of the case. It is pointed out that the delay in filing the complaint by one day also adds to the contention of the appellant-insurance company that the motorcycle owned by the respondent No.1 has been falsely implicated in the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 case with an intention of making unlawful gain. It is submitted that PW1 in the cross examination admits that the complaint has been filed after deliberations with others, with a view to obtain the compensation and the medical records show that the petitioner had fallen from a motorcycle after it was dashed by another motorcycle and as such the testimony of the PW1 is not believable. It is pointed out that the false implication of the motorcycle was to be inferred by the Tribunal and the failure in this regard has resulted in an erroneous award being passed against insurance company. So far as the quantum of the compensation amount is concerned, she defends the impugned judgment saying that there is no need for enhancement. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who is also an appellant seeking enhancement of the compensation, submits that the Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- and that the Ex.P14 medical bill - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 was not at all considered by the Tribunal. It is pointed out that only Ex.P13 has been considered by the Tribunal and the entire bill of Tanga Hospital was not considered. Regarding the involvement of the motorcycle, he submits that the complaint was lodged by the brother of the injured on the next day of the accident as the petitioner was admitted to Hospital at G.S. Kulkarni Hospital, Miraj. He submits that though in the cross examination the petitioner admitted that there was consultation and deliberation before filing the complaint, that should not be used to the disadvantage of the petitioner. He submit that the social status of the petitioner that he was a manual labourer working in the field of building construction should be considered while dealing with his testimony. He points out that though the testimony of the PW1 to some extent show the discrepancy about the time when the accident took place, the hospital records would speak the truth. He submits that the hospital records of Kundargi Hospital show that petitioner reached the hospital at 2:10 PM and he was brought by his brother Raju in a 108 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 Ambulance driven by one Chandrashekhar. Therefore, the record at Ex.P12 would show that the accident had occurred at around 11:00 AM and the subsequent part of Ex.P12 would show that the accident was at about 12 noon. Obviously Ex.P12 do not mention as to who gave such information to the hospital authorities. During the cross examination of the PW1, it is elicited that PW1 gave such information to the hospital authorities. In his submission, the hospital records show that when petitioner was taken to the hospital, there may be a mention that there was a motorcycle over which the petitioner was sitting or standing and it was hit by another motorcycle, but that does not take away the involvement of the motorcycle owned by the respondent No.1 which caused the accident. The discrepancies may point out that the manner in which the accident occurred is different, but that would not absolve the involvement of the vehicle owned by the respondent No1. Therefore, he contends that the impugned judgment do not require any - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 indulgence by this Court in respect of the question of liability. 12. The first aspect to be decided by this Court is whether there is a false implication of the vehicle owned by the respondent No1 and insured by the respondent No.2. The first record about the accident is the Ex.P12. It is the first page of the case sheet of Kundargi Hospital, which states that the injuries were suffered due to accidental fall from motorcycle after dashed by another motorcycle at 11:00 AM on 3.7.2014. It is evident that the petitioner was hit by a motorcycle. The 3rd page of the hospital records of Ex.P12 would show that, the patient had reported with history of accident at Ronihal village at about 12 noon on 03.07.2014. He was found to have suffered grazed abrasion over the right forearm and swollen tenderness on the right knee with painful restricted moments. On the next day, he was advised surgery, but it appears that he was discharged. The discharge summary shows that he was discharged on - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 04.07.2014. The hospital had also issued an intimation to the police reporting that the petitioner was admitted to the Hospital with history of RTA on 03.07.2014 at 11:00 AM near Ronihal of Basavan Bagewadi taluka. Such intimation was received by the SHO of APMC police station of Bijapur at 18.40 hours on 03.07.2014. 13. Despite such intimation given to the concerned police, it appears that on the next day the Kolhar police station of Bijapur District registered a case on the basis of the complaint filed by one Bhimasi, who was the brother of the petitioner. In the said complaint he had mentioned that he is an eye witness to the accident and on 03.07.2014 afternoon while he was speaking to one Chidanand, the petitioner was standing by the side of the road and the respondent No1 came on his motorcycle and dashed to the petitioner resulting in the accident and thereafter, he saw the number of the motorcycle and then the injured he was shifted to the Kundargi Hospital. It is stated that the accident took place at about 2:30 PM, the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 complaint was received by the concerned police on 04.07.2014 at 11.30 hrs and investigation was launched. Thereafter, all the police papers show that the accident had occurred at 2:30 PM. Accordingly, the petitioner had also mentioned in his petition that it had occurred at 2:30 PM and only after the hospital records at Ex.P12 were summoned, the petition was amended to show that the accident was at about 12 Noon. 14. It is to be observed that, there is discrepancy regarding the time of the accident as per the complaint filed by Bhimasi and the subsequent investigation conducted by the police vis-a-vis in hospital records. There is no reason to disbelieve the hospital records which speak of the accident occurring either at about 11:00 AM or 12 Noon. The hospital records of Kundargi Hospital inevitably established that the accident had occurred at either 11:00 AM or 12 Noon and the petitioner was treated at 2:10 PM. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 15. Having decided that, the next aspect would be whether the involvement of the motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 is established. Whether it is the police papers or the hospital records, the involvement of the motorcycle is established. The complaint pinpoints the motorcycle owned by the respondent No1 and the investigation proceeded on the same and ultimately chargesheet was filed against the respondent No1. Hospital records do not mention the number of the motorcycle. However, it refers to “another” motorcycle over which the petitioner was either sitting or standing. The cross examination of the PW1 on this aspect shows that nothing is elicited about the involvement of the another motorcycle, which was used by the petitioner. It is only elicited that the complaint was filed on the motorcycle owned by the respondent No.1 with an intention to get the compensation. 16. Be that as it may, involvement of the motorcycle as per the hospital records is not ruled out. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 Hospital authorities need not record the vehicle numbers. Even they are not bound to record the particulars of the accident as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under these circumstances, except the hospital records, there is nothing else, which shows that petitioner also had a motorcycle and he had fallen from the said motorcycle. In that view of the matter, except the discrepancy regarding the hospital records of Kundargi Hospital at Ex.P12, there is absolutely no material on record to show that another motorcycle owned by the petitioner was involved. The police had received intimation about the accident that occurred through APMC police station Bijapur, but that was never considered or used by the investigating officer of Kolhar Police Station when he started the investigation. 17. Under these circumstances, the discrepancy in the hospital records about the existence of another motorcycle is not going to affect the claim of the petitioner in any way. Moreover, the testimony of the PW1 cannot - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 overrule the involvement of the motorcycle owned by the respondent No.1. Though a doubt is created by the admission of the PW1, that cannot be sufficient enough to overcome the police papers which indict the rider of the vehicle. It is necessary to note that the rule of preponderance of probability makes this Court to lean in favour of the petitioner and creating a dent by way of an admission by PW1 in the cross-examination would not be sufficient enough to unsettle the overwhelming evidence which is available in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, interference is not required in the conclusions reached by the Tribunal that the petitioner has proved the involvement of the motorcycle owned by the respondent No.1. 18. So far as the quantum of the compensation is concerned, it is evident that the Ex.P14-Medical Bills was not considered when the Tribunal dealt with Ex.P8-Hospital Bills in Para 22 of its judgment. Ex.P14 accounts for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towards the bill of Dr. Tanga - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 Hospital, where the petitioner underwent knee replacement surgeries. Therefore, the medical expenses of Rs.2,25,000/- has to be awarded to the petitioner in addition to the sum of Rs.1,73,400/-. In total Rs.3,98,400/-. 19. The Tribunal based on the testimony of the PW2 has assessed the functional disability of the petitioner at 10%. The PW2 had stated that there is disability of 25% to 30% to the right lower limb. The said conclusion is proper and no interference is required. 20. So far as the notional income is concerned, the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) for settlement of the disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe the notional income of Rs.7,500/- for the year 2014. In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are held to be acceptable on the ground that they are in general conformity with the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 of the petitioner is accepted as Rs.7,500/- per month. Hence, the loss of future income is calculated as Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 16 x 10% = Rs.1,44,000/-. 21. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards the loss of income during 04 months of laid up period. 22. Having noticed fracture of upper end of the right tibia, fibula and knee surgery which had to be undergone, the compensation under the head of pain and sufferings is a enhanced Rs.40,000/-. 23. Similarly, the compensation under the head of loss of amenities is also enhanced to Rs.45,000/-. 24. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the remaining heads does not require any enhancement. Accordingly, the appellant-petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,87,400/- as against Rs.3,58,600/- awarded by the Tribunal, as below: - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 Sl. No. Heads Award by the Tribunal Award by this Court 1 Injury, pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/- Rs.40,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.1,73,400/- Rs.3,98,400/- 3 Loss of income due to permanent physical disability Rs.1,15,200/- Rs.1,44,000/- 4 Food and nourishment Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 5 Attendant’s charges Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 6 Conveyance charges Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 7 Loss of amenities and future unhappiness Rs.20,000/- Rs.45,000/- 8 Loss of income during laid up period -- Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.3,58,600/- Rs.6,87,400/- Less: Award by the Tribunal Rs.3,58,600/- Total enhancement Rs.3,28,800/- 25. There being no justification for awarding 9% interest on the compensation, the same requires to be reduced to 6% per annum in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Smt. Laxmi and Others1 rendered in MFA No.103557/2016 dated 20-03- 1 2018 (4) AKR 808 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 2018. Hence, the rate of interest is reduced to 6% per annum. 26. In the result, both the appeals deserve to be allowed in part and hence, the following: ORDER (i) Both the appeals are allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. (iii) The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,28,800/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) The Insurance Company is liable to pay interest at 6% per annum on the entire compensation of Rs.6,87,400/- at rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization on entire compensation. (v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1818 MFA No. 200684 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201845 of 2019 with interest within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (vi) The rest of the terms and conditions regarding deposit and etc., ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered for enhanced compensation also. (vii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE SMP,SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60 CT: AK