- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12604 MFA No. 5419 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5419 OF 2014(MV-I) BETWEEN: A. PRAKASH, S/O. ESWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SINGAPURA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S.E. RAVISHANKAR, S/O. S.B. ESWARAPPA, AGE MAJOR, R/O. SONDEKOLA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 501, OWNER OF MARUTHI OMINI NO.KA-16-M-1563. 2. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 34/3, MMK COMPLEX, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANGERE-577 002. 3. A.E. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O. ESWARAPPA, MAJOR, R/O. SINGAPURA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, OWNER OF HERO HONDA MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-16-U-33032. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12604 MFA No. 5419 of 2014 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., B.M. COMPLEX, LAKSHMI BAZAR, CHITRADURGA-577 501. …RESPONDENTS (R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; BY SMT. SUJATHA PANDIT S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 11.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC. NO.294/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, MACT-3, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed in MVC.No.294/2012 dated 11.03.2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM and MACT- III at Chitradurga, the claimant is before this Court questioning the issue of liability as well as seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 21.06.2010 at about 4.15 pm., he was going towards Godabanal Village from Singapura as pillion rider on a motorcycle which was being ridden by its rider, near Rangaswamy land, at Ganjigunte - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12604 MFA No. 5419 of 2014 Village, at that point of time, the driver of Maruti Omni van came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without following traffic rules and dashed to the motorcycle, a result of accident occurred and the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. According to the claimant, he had sustained fracture. As per the evidence of the doctor, the disability to the limb is 35% and 17% to the whole body. The Tribunal had taken 15% as disability and the income is considered at an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month and granted the compensation. 3. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had granted the compensation as per the table given below: Sl. No. Description Amount in rupees 1. Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/- 2. Permanent disability (15% of Rs.4,000/-X12X13) Rs.93,600/- 3. Treatment expenses Rs.66,170/- 4. Loss of income during treatment and rest period (Rs.4,000/-X4 months) Rs.16,000/- 5. Attendant, nourishment and incidental charges Rs.10,000/- 6. Conveyance Rs.5,000/- 7. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.2,40,770/- (Rounded off to Rs.2,40,800/-) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12604 MFA No. 5419 of 2014 4. Altogether the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.2,40,800/-. Aggrieved thereby the appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 5. When it comes to the liability, the Tribunal had observed that Ex.R4 clearly reveals that after investigation, the police found that the claimant himself was riding the motor vehicle and due to his negligence he dashed the same to the roadside edge and fell down and he has not examined any witnesses who have seen the alleged accident to establish that he was not riding the motorcycle and he was not negligent. Admittedly, he is not holding a driving license to ride the motorcycle. When the police records are against the petitioner and when he has not examined any witness who has seen the incident, his self-serving statement cannot be believed and accepted by the Court. His evidence is contrary to the investigation made by the police. Even on perusal of the judgment passed in criminal case, it does not disclose that the driver of the car was responsible for accident. Only on the ground that the material placed is not satisfactory, the petitioner was acquitted. Further, the Tribunal had observed that the owner of the motorcycle i.e., 3rd respondent is the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12604 MFA No. 5419 of 2014 brother of the petitioner and to claim the compensation in collusion with 3rd respondent they have created a story stating that one Rudresh was riding the motorcycle. Accordingly, the same cannot be believed and answered the issue in the negative. The Tribunal had also observed that the awarded compensation may be recovered from his brother, if he is so interested. The Tribunal had proceeded further and granted compensation of an amount of Rs.2,40,800/- which is payable by the owner of the vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that the Tribunal has not granted just compensation and he is acquitted in the criminal case and he was a pillion rider but, not the rider of the motorcycle. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal had fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle and it should have been on the insurance company. It is submitted that he is a pillion rider and that aspect was not considered by the Tribunal and the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4/Insurance Companies submits that the Tribunal had - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12604 MFA No. 5419 of 2014 rightly exonerated the insurance company. In fact, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. As the liability is on the owner, the insurance company has not preferred the appeal even the owner of the vehicle has not preferred any appeal. It appears that respondent No.3/owner and the claimant are brothers. This Court is not able to understand how the Tribunal had granted compensation when the Court had given a finding that the claimant himself is responsible for the accident and there is negligence on his behalf. As the owner of the vehicle has not preferred any appeal, in this case, this Court is not giving any finding nor interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal and at the same time, in the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to consider the aspect of enhancement. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is dismissed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12604 MFA No. 5419 of 2014 ii. 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. iii. No costs. iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4