- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3443 OF 2020 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3434 OF 2020 (MV-D) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4167 OF 2020 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4126 OF 2021 (MV-D) IN MFA No.3443/2020 BETWEEN THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., POLICY ISSUING OFFICE AT NO.1/1, CONNAUGHT ROAD QUEENS ROAD CROSS BENGALURU-560052 NOW REP BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX RESIDENCY ROAD BENGALURU-560025 REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER ...APPELLANT (BY SRI A M VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . PRASAD S/O PUTTAMURTHY B AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS SINCE CLAIMANT IS UNCONSCIOUS AND NOT ORIENTED HENCE, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PUTTAMURTHY B S/O BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT BEHIND ANTARAGHATTAMMA Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER TEMPLE, ATTIGUNDA VILLAGE ARALIHALLI POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT. 2 . HANUMAKKA W/O RAMABHOVI T BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE HAROHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT (RC OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER BEARING REG.NO.KA-42/T-3729 AND KA-42/T-3730) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRAKASH M.H, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI SRIHARI A.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.2872/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.22,50,100/-- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. (EXCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF RS.20,000/-) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION AND ETC. IN MFA No.3434/2020 BETWEEN THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, POLICY ISSUING OFFICE AT NO.1/1, CONNAUGHT ROAD QUEENS ROAD CROSS BENGALURU-560052 NOW REP BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560025. REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. M VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER AND 1 . GITA DEVI W/O LATE MURARI YADAV AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 2 . SUNIL KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE MURARI YADAV AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 3 . KHUSHBU KUMARI D/O LATE MURARI YADAV AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 4 . KIRAN KUMARI D/O LATE MURARI YADAV AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS 5 . TULSI KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE MURARI YADAV AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 6 . SHAHDEV YADAV S/O LATE MASUDAN YADAV AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS 7 . TUSELYA DEVI W/O SHAHDEV YADAV AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS SINCE RESPONDENT No.5 IS MINOR REP BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN ALL ARE RESIDING AT KAMALAPUR FATTAPATHAR LAKSHMIPURA POST KOTARIA POLICE STATION BANKA DISTRICT BIHAR STATE. 8 . HANUMAKKA W/O RAMABHOVI - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER T BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE HAROHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT (RC OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER BEARING REG.NO.KA-42/T-3729 AND KA-42/T-3730) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRAKASH M.H, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R5 AND R6 SRI SRIHARI A.V, ADVOCATE FOR R8 R2, R3, R4 AND R7 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.01.2020, PASSED IN MVC NO.2871/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE X-ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.20,98,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION AND ETC. IN MFA No.4167/2020 BETWEEN SRI PRASAD S/O PUTTAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, THROUGH HIS FATHER SRI PUTTAMURTHY B S/O BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND ANTARAGHATTAMMA TEMPLE ATTIGUNDA VILLAGE, ARALIHALLI POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577245 (SINCE THE APPELLANT IS NOT IN A PROPER STATE OF SOUND MIND, REPRESENTING THROUGH HIS FATHER) ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASH M H, ADVOCATE) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER AND 1 . ORIENTAL INS. CO. LTD., POLICY ISSUING OFFICE AT NO.1/1 CONNAUGHT ROAD, QUEENS ROAD CROSS BANGALORE-560 052 REP BY ITS MANAGER 2 . HANUMAKKA W/O RAMABHOVI AGE MAJOR R/AT T BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE HAROHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DIST-562 117 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A M VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. SRIHARI A.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2872/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU(SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. IN MFA NO.4126/2021 BETWEEN 1 . SMT GITA DEVI W/O LATE MURARI YADAV AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 2 . SRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE MURARI YADAV AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 3 . KHUSHBU KUMARI D/O LATE MURARI YADAV AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER 4 . KIRAN KUMARI D/O LATE MURARI YADAV AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS 5 . TULSI KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE MURARI YADAV AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 6 . SRI SHAHDEV YADAV S/O LATE MASUDAN YADAV AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 7 . SMT TUSELYA DEVI W/O SHAHDEV YADAV AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT KAMALAPUR FATTAPATHAR, LAKSHMIPURA POST KOTARIA POLICE STATION BANKA DISTRICT 813101. BIHAR STATE. APPELLANT No.5 IS MINOR HENCE REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH M H, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . ORIENTAL INS. CO. LTD., POLICY ISSUING OFFICE AT NO.1/1, CONNAUGHT ROAD, QUEENS ROAD CROSS BANGALORE-560 052 REP BY ITS MANAGER 2 . HANUMAKKA W/O RAMABHOVI AGE MAJOR R/AT T. BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE HAROHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A M VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. SRIHARI A.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2871/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, POONACHA.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M.POONACHA) MFA No.3443/2020 is filed by the insurer and MFA No.4167/2021 is filed by the claimants. In both the appeals, the judgment and award dated 24.1.2020 passed in MVC No.2872/2016 is under challenge. MFA No.3434/2020 is filed by the insurer and MFA No.4126/2021 is filed by the claimants. In both the appeals the judgment and award dated 24.1.2020 passed in MVC No.2871/2016 has been challenged. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER 2. In all the above appeals, the common judgment dated 24.1.2020 passed in MVC Nos.2872/2016 and 2871/2016 by the X Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-16)1 is under challenge. Hence, all the appeals are taken up together for consideration. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their ranks before the Trial Court. 4. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that one Prasad (claimant in MVC No.2872/2016) was riding motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-36-EA-4935 along with pillion rider by name Murari Yadav on 8.11.2015 and when they were proceeding on Harohalli – Bannikuppe road and proceeding towards Bannikuppe, Tractor-Trailer bearing registration No.KA-42-T-3729 – KA-42-T-3730 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and hit the motor cycle causing the accident in question. Due to the said accident, the rider of the motor cycle sustained grievous injuries whereas the pillion rider succumbed to his 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER injuries. Wife, children and parents of Murari Yadav2, the pillion rider filed MVC No.2871/2016 claiming compensation for his death. The injured/rider of the motor cycle filed MVC No.2872/2016 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 5. In both the claim petitions, the owner and insurer of the Tractor - Trailer were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2. The respondents entered appearance before the Tribunal and contested the claim proceedings by filing separate statement of objections. The owner of the Tractor - Trailer denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and Trailer. It is further averred that since the vehicle was insured, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. 6. The insurer in its statement of objections specifically denied the involvement of the Tractor - Trailer insured by it stating that the motor cycle was hit by an unknown Tractor and subsequently, the insured Tractor - 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’ - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER Trailer has been implicated in the said accident. The other averments made in the claim petition have been denied. 7. The claimants got examined PWs.1 to 8. Exs.P1 to P59 have been marked. The respondents got examined RWs.1 and 2. Exs.R1 to R7 have been marked. The Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petitions held that the driver of the insured Tractor - Trailer was responsible for causing the accident in question and awarded compensation of `22,50,100/- in MVC No.2872/2016 and `20,98,000/- in MVC No.2871/2016 together with interest at 9% p.a. Being aggrieved, the above appeals are filed. 8. During the pendency of the above appeals, the insurer has filed IA.No.1/2023 in MFA No.3434/2020 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19083 for summoning the CCTV footage. 9. Sri A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the insurer vehemently contends that the claimants have not demonstrated that the insured Tractor - Trailer was involved in 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER the accident and there was no reference in the complaint to the insured vehicle. However, without any basis the insured has produced the Tractor in the police station after a long gap of 20 days voluntarily and without any notice being issued by the police authorities. That no relatives or injured persons have reported the accident and that the investigating officer or the complainant or the owner of the insured vehicle have not been examined. Hence, IA.No.1/2023 has been filed by the insurer in the present appeal for summoning the CCTV footage which requires to be allowed. That the Tribunal, without any basis has held that the insured Tractor-Trailer was involved in the accident and its driver was responsible for causing the accident in question. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded in both the petitions is on the higher side. 10. Per contra, Sri Prakash M.H., learned counsel appearing for the claimants contends that in the complaint there is reference to the Tractor and in the FIR the insured Tractor has been specifically mentioned. It is further contended that the owner in the statement of objections filed - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER before the Tribunal has admitted the accident but only denied negligence of his driver in causing the accident. That the driver/RW.1 has been examined and in the cross-examination the involvement of the insured vehicle has specifically been admitted. That the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the Tractor – Trailer was negligent in causing the accident, which finding ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeals. That IA.No.1/2023 filed by the insurer for summoning the CCTV records is untenable and requires to be rejected. That the quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced. 11. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are: i. Whether the application filed by the Insurer to summon CCTV footage by way of additional evidence deserves to be allowed? ii. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that on 08.11.2015 the accident occurred between Tractor and Trailer bearing No.KA-42-T-3729 and 3730 and the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-36-EA-4935 due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the said Tractor and Trailer? - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER iii. Whether the quantum of compensation granted under the impugned award is just and proper? Reg. question Nos.(i) & (ii): 12. The question whether the additional evidence in an appeal shall be permitted has to be considered along with the main matter. The same is governed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. Therefore these points are taken up together for consideration. 13. The complaint which is annexed along with FIR (Ex.P1) discloses that the complainant had stated that the injured and the deceased were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-36-EA-4935 on 08.11.2015 at 10.45 p.m., and they were hit by an unknown vehicle. It is further stated in the complaint that after viewing CCTV footage from Shivam Automobile factory, it is noticed that an unknown Tractor has caused the accident. Based on the said complaint, FIR has also been lodged against an unknown Tractor. The police have filed the charge sheet (Ex.P11), against one Nagaraju who is stated to be driver of the vehicle. It is stated therein that the accused who was the driver of Tractor-Trailer bearing No.KA-42-T-3729 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER and 3730 were responsible for causing the accident in question. In the said charge sheet, it is mentioned that a Sony CD Disc cassette has been seized vide Property Form No.183/2015 on 09.12.2015. The said Property Form No.183/2015 is also marked as Ex.P7 which discloses seizure of the said Sony CD Disc Cassette. It is relevant to note that the complaint was filed on 09.11.2015 i.e., the next day of the accident and the FIR was lodged on the same day i.e., on 09.11.2015 at 4.15 p.m. As per the complaint and FIR, the accident is stated to have occurred on 08.11.2015 at 10.45 p.m. 14. In the claim petition, the claimants have averred that the accident took place on 08.11.2015 at 10.45 p.m. and that the driver of the said Tractor and Trailer bearing No. KA- 42-T-3729 and 3730 is responsible for causing the accident. The owner of the vehicle who was arrayed as respondent No.1 before the Tribunal has filed statement of objections denying that the driver of the Tractor - Trailer was negligent in causing the accident. It is further contended that the Tractor - Trailer has been insured with respondent No.2 – insurer and any compensation is liable to be paid by the insurer. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER 15. Respondent No.2 – insurer in the statement of objections has specifically denied that the insured Tractor - Trailer was involved in the accident. It is further specifically contended that the complaint having been lodged against an unknown Tractor, without any basis, the insured Tractor - Trailer has been wrongly/intentionally implicated by the jurisdictional police in the charge sheet. 16. The father of the claimant in MVC No.2872/2016 examined himself as PW.1. The witness to the accident has been examined as PW.7 who deposed that on 08.11.2015 at about 10.00 p.m., when he was walking on the road and going towards Bannikuppe Circle, he noticed the Tractor – Trailer bearing registration No. KA-42-T-3729 and 3730 going towards Harohalli side. PW.7 has in detail narrated the fact that he sees the driver of the said Tractor – Trailer every day after completion of his work, washing of the Tractor - Trailer at the ice factory and he parking the said vehicle in front of Smt. Hanumakka’s house. He has further narrated as to the manner of the occurrence of the accident. It is relevant to note that PW.7 is also named as witness No.12 in the charge sheet - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER (Ex.P11) filed by the police authorities. It is also relevant to note here that PW.7 has not been cross-examined by the counsel for the respondents. Claimant No.1 in MVC No.2871/2016 examined herself as PW.8. 17. The driver of the vehicle by name Sri Nagaraja has been examined as RW.1. He has deposed that he was driving the insured Tractor – Trailer on 08.11.2015 at 10.30 p.m., when he was taking ‘U’ turn near Shivam Automobile Factory, Harohalli Industrial Area, a motorcycle came and hit against the Trailer and sustained injuries. He further deposed that insured Tractor - Trailer belongs to the owner Smt. Hanumakka. It is pertinent to note here that RW.1 has been cross-examined by learned counsel for the claimants as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurer. 18. In the cross-examination made by learned counsel for the insurer, RW1 has stated that he has not given any statement to the police and that respondent No.1 – owner has given statement. He has further stated that he was not present when the spot Mahazar was drawn. However, he was present when the complaint was lodged in the police station. He has - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER further stated that he is contesting the criminal proceeding. He has denied the suggestion made that the accident was caused by an unknown vehicle and the insured Tractor – Trailer has been falsely implicated in collusion with the owner and the police authorities to claim compensation. The officer of the insurer has been examined as RW.2. 19. It is forthcoming from the case summary and discharge record issued by ST. John’s Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru (Ex.P12) that in the column pertaining to presenting history, it is mentioned that the injured had sustained injuries in an alleged road traffic accident and it is further mentioned that the two wheeler which the injured was driving collided with a tractor. 20. It is pertinent to state here that pursuant to the complaint lodged and the FIR being registered, the police authorities have conducted investigation, inter alia, by also viewing the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence of the accident. The said CCTV footage has been seized and produced in the records of the Criminal Court which is forthcoming from the Property Form (Ex.P7). The eye-witness to the accident - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER has been examined as PW.7 who is also a charge sheet witness. The driver of the vehicle has also been examined as RW.1 who has deposed regarding the accident. RW.1 has been charge sheeted by the police authorities as is forthcoming from the charge sheet (Ex.P11). 21. Although the insurer has taken a specific defence regarding non-involvement and implication of the insured vehicle, it is pertinent to state here that the insurer has not appointed any independent investigator to carry out investigation as to the manner of occurrence of the accident. Further, apart from cross-examining the witnesses examined by the claimants, the insurer has not adduced any independent evidence to putforth and prove its defence. The insurer has not demonstrated that the investigation carried out by the police authorities was in any manner faulty. 22. Before this Court, it is contended that though in the charge sheet it was alleged that the CCTV footages of the scene of accident were produced, before the Tribunal the same was not produced. I.A.No.1/2023 is filed by the Insurer to summon the said CCTV footages contending that the same are placed - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER before the Court, the truth will come out. It is needless to say that the said application is opposed on the ground that the same is only a dilatory tactics and based on such record only the charge sheet was filed. 23. Production of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not a matter of right. The same can be permitted only if the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC are satisfied namely: (i) If the trial Court had refused to take such evidence though on production; (ii) Despite due diligence, such evidence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by the applicant; (iii) If the appellate Court requires such evidence to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment. 24. This is not a case where the document was produced and the Tribunal rejected to admit the same. The Insurer was aware since inception that in the charge sheet such CCTV footages were relied to point out the guilt of the accused. Still no efforts were made to summon such documents from 2016-2020 i.e., during the pendency of the proceedings before - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER the Tribunal. These appeals are filed in the year 2020/2021. After about three years, the Insurer files applications in both these appeals to summon the police to produce CCTV footages submitted in P.F.No.185/2015. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, absolutely there is no explanation why such attempt was not made at appropriate stage to summon such record. Nowhere it is stated that existence of such CCTV footages was not within the knowledge of the insurer. As against that, in the affidavit it was contended that CCTV footages were marked as Ex.P7 without playing the same. However, the records show that Ex.P7 is only a property form and not CCTV footage. Without even any seriousness in examining what is in Ex.P7, such a sworn statement is made by the Deputy Manager of the Insurer. Ex.P7 the property form in Crime No.360/2015 shows that the Investigating Officer reported the seizure of CCTV footage in a CD and sought permission to retain the same with the Investigating Officer till filing of the charge sheet. Obviously, while filing the charge sheet, the said property must have been produced before the Court. Without ascertaining whether the same was still with the police or produced before the Court, direction is sought to - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER Harohalli police to produce the said property. Therefore the first two requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC referred to above are not satisfied. 25. Then the next question is whether Court requires such CCTV footages to decide this case. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that the Investigating Officer on analyzing the material including the said CCTV footages collected during the investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of Tractor and Trailer. The evidence adduced by the claimants corroborated the said charge sheet. Therefore this Court does not find that any other evidence is necessary much less the said CCTV footage to decide this matter. The Insurer while filing the application does not even invoke the appropriate provision of law namely Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. The application is filed under Section 151 of CPC. When there is a specific provision governing the issue, the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of CPC cannot be invoked. Moreover no grounds are made out to invoke such power. Therefore, the applications in both the appeals for adducing additional evidence are bereft of any merit. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER 26. Although, it is vehemently sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the insurer that the driver of the vehicle voluntarily came and surrendered the vehicle and police authorities have not resorted to the procedure under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19884 for the purpose of seizing the insured vehicle, the said aspect cannot be the sole basis to discredit the entire investigation carried out by the police authorities. Having regard to the fact that at the place of occurrence of the accident, a CCTV footage was available which has been seized by the police authorities as is forthcoming from Ex.P11, the charge sheet having been filed consequent to investigation carried out by the police authorities and a witness to the accident/PW.7 who is also a charge sheet witness having been examined by the claimants as also the driver of the insured vehicle having been examined as RW.1, the insurer has failed to establish its defence of false implication of insured vehicle. It is further relevant to note that the Tribunal has appreciated the factual matrix of the matter has recorded a finding that the accident is caused due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle. 4 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1988’ - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER 27. It is clear from the aforementioned that the claimants have adequately demonstrated that the accident is caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle. It is a settled proposition of law that the standard of proof in proceedings under Section 166 of the MV Act is preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. The insurer has failed to make out a ground for adducing additional evidence and failed demonstrate that the insured vehicle has been falsely implicated in the accident in question and that the finding of the Tribunal on negligence is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with. Hence, question Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered accordingly. Reg: Question No.(iii): 28. Quantum of compensation in MVC No.2871/2016: i. It is averred that the deceased was working as Safety Supervisor at Gina Engineering Co. Ltd. The representative of the employer has been examined as PW.5. It is forthcoming from the appointment letter (Ex.P49) and the ledger extract (Ex.P50) that the deceased was earning monthly salary of `13,000/-. Although in the claim petition, the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER deceased is stated to be aged 40 years, as per the election ID card (Ex.P59), as on 01.01.2004 his age was 38 years. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the deceased as 49 years, multiplier as 13 and income of the deceased at `13,000/- p.m. To the said income of the deceased, 25% is required to be added towards future prospects having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.5. The claimants are the wife, four children and the parents. Since there are 7 dependants, 1/5th of his income is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, the income of the deceased for the purpose of assessment of loss of dependency is (`13,000/- + 25% - 1/5th ) = `13,000/-. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the loss of dependency at (`13,000 x 12 x 13) `20,28,000/-. ii. Loss of consortium is required to be awarded to all the seven claimants having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram6 at `40,000/- each 5 AIR 2017 SC 5157 6 2018 (18) SCC 130 - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER with escalation at 10%. The Tribunal has erroneously awarded only `40,000/- as loss of consortium to all claimants. Hence, loss of consortium is re-assessed at (`44,000 x 7) = `3,08,000/-. iii. The compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate is required to be awarded at `15,000/- each together with 10% escalation. Hence, the compensation on the said heads is re-assessed as `16,500/- each. Sl.No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (`) Amount awarded by this Court(`) 1 Loss of dependency 20,28,000.00 20,28,000.00 2 Loss of consortium 40,000.00 3,08,000.00 3. Funeral expenses 15,000.00 16,500.00 4. Loss of estate 15,000.00 16,500.00 Total 20,98,000.00 23,69,000.00 iv. Hence, the claimants are held entitled for enhanced compensation of (`23,69,000/- - `20,98,000/-) `2,71,000/-. 29. Quantum of compensation in MVC No.2872/2016: i. The claimant is aged 21 years as on the date of the accident. It is forthcoming from the wound certificate (Ex.P10) - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER that the claimant has sustained cut lacerated wound in the right side head over tempero parietal region measuring 15 cm in length. CT scan report of the brain shows that there is a comminuted skull fracture with left joint parietal sub dural hemorrhage and fascine sub arachnoid hemorrhage and x-ray of left leg shows the facture of neck of left femur. The discharge summaries (Exs.P12 to P16) have been issued by the St. John’s Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru and another discharge summary - Ex.P17 has been issued by Nirmala Hospital, Shimogga which disclose that the claimant was inpatient on various dates at St. John’s Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru from 08.11.2015 to 07.12.2015, 17.02.2016 to 28.02.2016, 31.03.2016 to 04.04.2016 and 30.06.2016 to 22.07.2016 i.e., for a total period of 72 days (mentioned as 70 days in the judgment of the Tribunal). Ex.P17 discloses that he was inpatient at Nirmala Hospital for one day. The same discloses that claimant was treated as an outpatient for various periods up to 22.07.2016 from the date of accident. - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER ii. The two Doctors i.e., PWs.3 and 4 have been examined by the claimant. Dr. Nagesh S.A. (PW-3), Assistant Professor in Neuro Surgery Department of Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru has deposed regarding the treatment undertaken by the claimant and has assessed the whole body disability at 52.22%. PW.4 – Dr.Ramachandra – Assistant Professor of Orthopedics, Victoria Hospital, Benaluru has deposed regarding the various injuries sustained by the claimant and has assessed the whole body disability at 25.3%. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record has assessed the cognitive, neuro behavioral and physical disability of the claimant at 64%. iii. The claimant has stated that he was working as a Safety Supervisor at Gina Engineering Co.Ltd., and earning `15,000/- p.m. The representative of the employer has been examined as PW.5. However, the appointment letter (Ex.P22) and the Bank Statement (Exs.P23 and P.24) disclose that the claimant was earning monthly salary of `12,000/- per month. The age of the claimant has been assessed as 21 years as per the driving licence (Ex.P36). Hence, the Tribunal applied - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER multiplier of ‘18’ and assessed the disability at 64%. Since the disability has been assessed more than 50%, future prospects is required to be added. Hence, for the purpose of calculating the disability, the income is assessed as `12,000 +`4,800/- (40%) = `16,800 x 12 x 18 x 64% = `23,22,432/- as against `16,58,880/- assessed by the Tribunal. iv. Having regard to the number of injuries, compensation for the pain and suffering is re-assessed as `1,50,000/- as against `1.00 lakh awarded by the Tribunal. v. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `1,60,660/- towards medical expenses by taking into consideration the medical expenses paid by the employer of the claimant, which assessment is just and proper. vi. The Tribunal has assessed the laid up period as six months. However, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment undertaken by the claimant, the laid up period is re-assessed as 8 months and a sum of `(`12,000/- x 8) `96,000/- is awarded as against `72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER vii. The Tribunal has noticed that the claimant has produced Ambulance and traveling bills as per Ex.P21 and P35 amounting to `56,478/- and awarded a total sum of `1,28,478/- towards attendant charges, food, nourishment and conveyance expenses. However, having regard to the period of treatment, the compensation on the said head is re-assessed as `1,50,000/-. viii. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `30,000/- towards loss of amenities and happiness. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the period of treatment as also the resultant disability, the same is re-assessed as `50,000/-. ix. The Tribunal has awarded future medical expenses of `20,000/- which is just and proper. x. The loss of marriage prospects and disfigurement is awarded at `80,000/- by the Tribunal. However, having regard to the judgment in the case of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand7 and Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance Co.8 loss of marriage prospects is re-assessed at `3,00,000/-. 7 (2020) 4 SCC 413 - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER xi. Hence, the compensation is re-assessed as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (`) Amount awarded by this Court(`) 1 Pain and sufferings 1,00,000.00 1,50,000.00 2 Attendant charges, extract nutritious food and conveyance expenses including ambulance charges, 1,28,478.00 1,50,000.00 3. Loss of income during laid up period 72,000.00 96,000.00 4. Medical expenses 1,60,660.00 1,60,660.00 5. Loss of future income due to permanent disability 16,58,880.00 23,22,432.00 6. Loss of future amenities and happiness 30,000.00 50,000.00 7. Future medical expenses 20,000.00 20,000.00 8. Loss of marriage prospects and disfigurement 80,000.00 3,00,000.00 Total 22,50,018.00 32,49,092.00 xii. Hence, the claimants are held entitled for enhanced compensation of (`32,49,092/- - 22,50,018/- ) `9,99,074/-. 30. Accordingly, question No.(ii) framed for consideration is answered in the negative. 8 (2022) 7 SCC 738, - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER 31. In both the petitions, the Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a., without any reason. Hence, it is just and proper that the rate of interest is re-assessed at 6% p.a. 32. Hence, the following: ORDER i. All the above appeals are partly allowed; ii. The quantum of compensation awarded in the common judgment dated 24.1.2020 passed in MVC Nos.2872/2016 and 2871/2016 by the X Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-16), is modified as under: a) The claimants in MVC No. 2871/2016 are entitled to a total compensation of `23,69,000/-; b) The claimant in MVC No.2872/2016 is entitled to a total compensation of `32,49,092/-. - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:9895-DB MFA No. 3443 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3434 of 2020 MFA No. 4167 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER iii. The compensation is payable together with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till date of payment. iv. The insurer – respondent No.2 before the Tribunal shall deposit the aforesaid compensation after adjusting the compensation already deposited, if any, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; v. The amount deposited by the insurer in the appeals filed by it together with records shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith for disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal. SD/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE SD/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND,BS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 6