- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14274 MFA No. 2205 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 3091 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2205 OF 2014(MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3091 OF 2014(MV-I) IN MFA No. 2205/2014 BETWEEN: B. SHIVANANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE BORAIAH, RESIDING AT C/O. SOMASHEKHARAIAH NITTUR VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T.C. SHIVARUDRAPPA, S/O. CHIKKAGOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT. THARUR VILLAGE, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, I FLOOR, T.G.M.A. BUILDING, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14274 MFA No. 2205 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 3091 of 2014 J.C. ROAD, TUMKUR TOWN, BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1444/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT-17, GUBBI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 3091/2014 BETWEEN: ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, I FLOOR, TGMA BUILDING, J.C.ROAD, TUMKUR TOWN, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B. SHIVANANDAIAH, S/O. LATE BORAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A. C/O. SOMASHEKARAIAH, NITTUR VILLAGE/HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK-572 216. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14274 MFA No. 2205 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 3091 of 2014 2. SHIVARUDRAPPA.T.C., S/O. CHIKKAGOWDAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. THARUR VILLAGE, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK-572 137. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1444/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & PRESIDING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL MACT-17 AT GUBBI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,05,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.1444/2009 dated 26.12.2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT-17 at Gubbi, both the insurance company as well as the claimant are before this Court. The insurance company has filed MFA.No.3091/2014 and the claimant has filed MFA. No.2205/2014. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14274 MFA No. 2205 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 3091 of 2014 of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 08.09.2009 at about 9.00 am., while the claimant and his brother-in-law were proceeding by walk on NH 206 at Nittur, in front of the house of one Mariyappa, a Hero Honda CD 100 motorbike came with a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, from the back side of the claimant and dashed against him, on account of which he fell down and sustained injuries and immediately his brother-in-law, who was walking along with the claimant had shifted him to a private clinic at Nittur and thereafter, to WOCKHARDT hospital, Bangalore. The Tribunal on the issue of liability had held that it is the case of the insurance company that the belated complaint is given after 5 days of the accident and the reasons are unexplained and the vehicle is not involved in the accident. The Tribunal had held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation on the ground that there is reasonable explanation for not filing the complaint within 5 days and the police records also supports the case of the claimant and the vehicle is insured by the insurance company and the insurance company is liable to pay the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14274 MFA No. 2205 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 3091 of 2014 compensation. When it comes to the compensation, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.1,05,800/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 3. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had granted the compensation as per the table given below: Sl. No. Head of Compensation Amount in Rs. 1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 15,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs. 60,000/- 3. Loss of enjoyment of leave Rs. 5,000/- 4. Loss of amenity Rs. 25,000/- 5. Attendant charges Rs. 400/- 6. Food and nourishment charges Rs. 400/- Total Rs. 1,05,800/- 4. Altogether the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,05,800/-. Aggrieved thereby the appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation and the insurance company is questioning the liability of the insurance company as the claimant had failed to prove that the said vehicle is involved in the accident. 5. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that Ex.P.16 is the admission card and Ex.P.15 is the discharge - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14274 MFA No. 2205 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 3091 of 2014 summary of the WOCKHARDT hospital. As per that, it is a fall from the bike. The Ex.P.4, wound certificate says that it is in a R.T.A. It is the contention of the learned counsel that there is delay in filing the complaint and the vehicle on which they were travelling is implicated in this case. It is submitted that the brother-in-law was not examined, complaint is given after 5 days without a proper explanation and brother-in-law who has deposed that he has taken the claimant to the hospital and get treated him and as stated by him, the Tribunal had recorded as fall from the bike. According to the learned counsel, with all the suppression and misrepresentation of facts, the claimant had approached the Tribunal and the claim petition ought to have dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the claimant has discharged his burden by examining PW2 and by marking Ex.P.1 to 17. Learned counsel submits that it is never the case of the insurance company that the vehicle is not involved in the accident and without taking any grounds before the Tribunal, it is not permissible for them to raise all these grounds before this Court. It is submitted that the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is not the just - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14274 MFA No. 2205 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 3091 of 2014 and reasonable compensation and the same needs to be enhanced. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. First coming to the aspect of liability, no doubt all the police records are in favour of the claimant showing that the accident had taken place and they have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant had relied on Ex.P.4, 15 and 16. Ex.P.15 and 16 i.e., the WOCKHARDT hospital admission card and the discharge summary speaks about the fall from the bike. Ex.P.4, the wound certificate is issued by the very same hospital. The three documents are running contrary to the other. In that case the claimant ought to have examined the concerned. In the light of delay in giving the complaint, learned counsel submits that the documents which are in favour of the claimant has to be proved, that this Court is not able to appreciate. When a petition is filed under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant has to prove that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle when the accident had taken place. When his own documents are placed, two documents are not supporting his case and one document - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14274 MFA No. 2205 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 3091 of 2014 issued by the very same hospital and they are all speaking different versions, then the responsibility lies on him to examine the concerned in support of the same which the claimant had failed to prove. In view of the above discussions, this Court of the view of that there are merits in the contentions of the insurance company and the claimant had failed to prove the accident. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order passed in MVC. No.1444/2009 dated 26.12.2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT-17 at Gubbi is set aside and MFA.No.3091/2014 is allowed. i. Accordingly, the MFA.No.2205/2014 filed by the claimant is dismissed. ii. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal and the insurance company is at liberty to withdraw the same. iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14274 MFA No. 2205 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 3091 of 2014 iv. No costs. v. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8