- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1847 MFA No. 201426 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201426/2021(MV-I) BETWEEN: SHREEMANTH S/O NAGSHETTY GOURA, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: CHANNEL MANAGER PVT. CO., R/O KHED VILLAGE, TQ. AURAD-B, DIST. BIDAR-585 401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHIBOOB TAMBOLI S/O ISMAIL TAMBOLI, AGE: MAJOR, R/O GAVADE VASTI, CHANDRAMOULI, MIDC MOHOL, SOLAPUR, TQ. & DIST. SOLAPUR (M.S). 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, ABOVE IDBI BANK, OPP: SUB-JAIL, TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE, FOR R2; R1-V/O. DTD. 20.01.2022, NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1847 MFA No. 201426 of 2021 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.619/2017 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT, AURAD-B, ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.4,24,587/- WITH 7% INTEREST TO RS.14,99,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CM. JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI) 1. Though this matter is slated for admission, with the consent of the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.12.2019 passed in MVC No.619/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Aurad-B, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned judgment and award on the ground that the medical expenses have not been awarded to him. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1847 MFA No. 201426 of 2021 4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that he met with an accident on 18.07.2017 involving the vehicle owned by the respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2; He approached the Tribunal seeking adequate compensation, he being Channel Manager in a private company, had suffered fracture of right femur and right humerus, he was admitted to the hospital twice. The Tribunal agreed that he is entitled for compensation, declined to grant any compensation under the head of medical expenses, on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any material to show that he has not claimed the medical expenses from his employer. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the burden of proving the fact that the petitioner has claimed compensation from his employer is on the respondent No.2 and if such contention is taken up by it. On the part of the petitioner, he has placed on record the original receipts of the hospital and purchase of the medicines and they themselves are sufficient enough to prove that he has spent a sum of Rs.2,42,840/-. When the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1847 MFA No. 201426 of 2021 petitioner has placed on record his medical bills in original, the hospital records coupled with the medical records, clearly establish that he had paid such expenses. Therefore, he submits that it was not fair on the part of the Tribunal to disbelieve the medical bills on the ground that the employer of the petitioner has not come before the Tribunal and stated that the petitioner has not been reimbursed such amount. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company defends the impugned judgment and award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the original medical bills produced before the Tribunal show a medical expenses of Rs.2,42,840/-. Admittedly, these bills are original bills and not the duplicate bills. In the testimony of PW1, he has denied that any of the medical expenses has been reimbursed by the employer. It was also pertinent to note that his appointment letter produced by the petitioner at Ex.157 shows that there is no such clause regarding reimbursement of the medical expenses. When the terms and conditions of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1847 MFA No. 201426 of 2021 appointment of petitioner are very clear from Ex.P157, evidently, the Tribunal has erred in holding that the employer of the petitioner should have come to the Court and stated that there was no such reimbursement. It is pertinent to note that evidence of the fact which existed can be given, but evidence of fact which did not exist cannot be given. Therefore, the said view of the Tribunal is obviously no grounds. No other grounds are urged before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. iii) The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,42,840/- towards medical expenses with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1847 MFA No. 201426 of 2021 iv) The respondent No.2 - Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. v) In case of deposit, it is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner on proper identification. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT: AK