- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19702 MFA No. 2154 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2154 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE GIC LTD, NO.414, VEER SARVAKAR MARG, NEAR SIDDIVINAYAKA TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400 025 NOW REP BY ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD SVR COMPLEX,MADIVALA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 068. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.S.KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MASTER CHETHAN KUMAR, S/O MANJULA, NOW AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MANJULA, R/AT NO.9, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, 1ST CROSS, ADUGODI, BANGALORE - 560 030. 2. K SAMPATH , S/O LATE KULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT 19, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET 1ST CROSS, ADUGODI BANGALORE- 560 030. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRAKASH H.C.,ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2-SERVED) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19702 MFA No. 2154 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:7.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.5338/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 24TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 22ND ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,86,000/- TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH INTEREST 1,66,000/- @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT OF ENTIRE AMOUNT IN THE TRIBUNAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurer-respondent No.2 against the judgment and award dated 07.11.2013 passed by the MACT, XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru in MVC.No.5338/2012 (for short 'Tribunal'). 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.07.2012 around 7.30 a.m., the claimant was traveling as pillion rider on Honda Activa Motor Bike bearing registration No.KA-01-EW- 1148 from Bengaluru to Attibele. The rider of the said motor cycle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the road divider. As a result, the petitioner fell and sustained grievous injuries. With these reasons, prayed to award the compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19702 MFA No. 2154 of 2014 4. The respondent - insurer filed written statement denying the contentions of the claim petition and also denied its liability to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. The claimant on his behalf examined two witnesses as PW-1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to 13. The Tribunal after hearing both the sides and appreciating the materials available on record passed the impugned judgment awarding total compensation of Rs.1,86,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum. Being aggrieved by the said finding the insurer has preferred this appeal. 7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the claimants. 8. The learned counsel for the insurer - appellant vehemently contends that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. However, the Tribunal at the time of awarding the compensation ignored the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19702 MFA No. 2154 of 2014 provision of law and erroneously awarded compensation as if it was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Tribunal ought to have followed the structural formula and awarded the compensation. Therefore, the said finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. 9. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that claimant filed appeal before this Court in MFA.No.848/2014 and after hearing the arguments in that case, this Court confirmed the award passed by the Tribunal holding that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, once again, this Court cannot reconsider the appeal and give a different finding. 10. He further contends that the Tribunal has considered the merits of the matter and decided the case. It does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. Undisputedly, the claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989. Looking at the reasons assigned in issue No.2, it appears that Tribunal has not considered the petition under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and not followed the schedule (II) of the Motor - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19702 MFA No. 2154 of 2014 Vehicle Act, 1988 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,89,000/-. However, during the hearing of MFA.No.848/2014, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant - insurer did not bring to the notice of the Court about the pendency of this appeal. This court considering the arguments advanced in the said case, held that, whatever the amount of compensation awarded was just and reasonable and hence dismissed the appeal vide order dated 24.03.2021. When such finding is already given by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it will operate as res judicata. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for respondent, once again this Court cannot re-consider the same and pass different award. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. ii. The amount in deposit, if any, by the insurer shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19702 MFA No. 2154 of 2014 iii. Registry is directed to send back the records to the Tribunal along with the copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24