- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14627 MFA No. 3162 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 1485 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3162 OF 2011(MV) C/W. MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1485 OF 2017(MV-I) IN MFA No. 3162/2011 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DO VII NO.1, SHANKAR HOUSE, MEKHRI CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 080, BY ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144, NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025. BY IT'S MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O. MAHESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. N. MADHU HEGDE, S/O.H NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT.NO.'U' 50, 4TH CROSS, MANJAPPA BLOCK, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 019. 2. ARMUGAM, MAJOR, S/O.KUPPU SWAMY, NO.7, CHAMARAJA PET, ANANDAPURA, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14627 MFA No. 3162 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 1485 of 2017 MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 09.08.2012) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.12.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.6496/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, PRINCIPAL MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.95,043/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 1485/2017 BETWEEN: SRI. N. MADHU HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O H. NAGARAJA, R/A NO.U 50, 4TH CROSS, MANJAPPA BLOCK, KEMPEGOWDA NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 019. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O. VII, NO.1, SHANKAR HOUSE, MEKHRI CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 080. 2. SRI. ARMUGAM, S/O KUPPU SWAMY, MAJOR, R/A NO.7, CHAMARAJA PET, ANANDAPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 078. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2016) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14627 MFA No. 3162 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 1485 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.12.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.6493/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND PRINCIPAL, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.6496/2008 dated 18.12.2010, the Insurance Company has preferred M.F.A No.3162/2011 questioning the quantum as well as the liability and the claimant has preferred M.F.A.No.1485/2017 seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 26.03.2008 around 1.00 p.m., the claimant along with his relative one Suresh was returning on Suzuki Samurai motorcycle as a pillion rider. On their way, when they reached near Gangamma Temple Road, suddenly Honda Active belonged to the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Suzuki Samurai motorcycle, wherein the petitioner - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14627 MFA No. 3162 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 1485 of 2017 was travelling. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained following injuries: i) Depressed fracture of roof and floor of left orbit, no herniation of the orbital contents into the left maxillary sinus seen. ii) Anterior and lateral wall and roof of left maxillary sinus, florid musocal thickening seen blocking the maxillary ostium with haemosinus is seen. iii) Left zygomatic bone with surrounding soft tissue swelling. iv) Lasser and possibly greater wing of sphenoid hone. 3. The Tribunal had held that, basing on the police records and other evidence available on the record, the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Honda Activa and as the same is insured with the Insurance Company, The Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. When it comes to the compensation, considering the two grievous injuries, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the head 'injury, pain and suffering'. Then coming to the 'medical expenses', basing on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14627 MFA No. 3162 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 1485 of 2017 the medical bills that are produced, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.41,043/-. Towards 'attendant and transportation charges', an amount of Rs.4,000/- was awarded. Towards 'loss of amenities in life / future inconvenience', an amount of Rs.20,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Altogether, the compensation of an amount of Rs.95,043/- was awarded. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company submits that the claimant was not a pillion rider, but he is a rider as he was 17 years old and he was not having driving license and as he was not having a driving license, it is projected that he was a pillion rider. Learned counsel referring to the injuries that are sustained by the claimant, particularly, the left zygomatic bone with surrounding soft tissue swelling and it is submitted that this injury would have not been caused if he is a pillion rider but this can only happen in the case of the rider of the vehicle. It is submitted that the doctor was not examined. In spite of the same, the Tribunal had granted the compensation. It is submitted that both on these counts, the appeal of the Insurance Company needs to be allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14627 MFA No. 3162 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 1485 of 2017 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the claimant was 17 years old and he was doing P.U.C. Because of the injuries sustained by him, he has sustained disability. All these issues were not considered by the Tribunal and the compensation i.e., awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable compensation. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. First coming to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that claimant was a rider but not a pillion rider. The police records reveals that he is a pillion rider. The Insurance Company had not taken any such objection in their written statement and they have not adduced any evidence to show. Basing on the medical evidence, learned counsel tried to impressed upon the Court that those kind of injuries would not take place if he is a pillion rider. The Court is not expert to understand these kind of things and burden lies on the party who alleges that those kind of injuries will not happen if he is a pillion rider, but will only happen in case of rider. In that case, the insurance company should have adduced the evidence. They have not adduced any evidence and this Court is not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14627 MFA No. 3162 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 1485 of 2017 inclined to take into consideration the said contention raised by the Insurance Company and the Tribunal had rightly held that the accident had happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. When it comes to compensation, no doubt the claimant has not examined the doctor. As far as the 'medical expenses' are concerned, basing on the medical evidence, the Tribunal had rightly granted the compensation under the said head. Coming to the 'attendant and transportation charges' and 'loss of amenities', considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal had rightly granted the compensation. Coming to the aspect of enhancement, without placing all the material on record, the Court cannot come to any conclusion with regard disability or otherwise and the compensation that needs to be awarded to the claimant. In this case, in the light of the evidence that is placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had rightly granted the compensation and no grounds are made out seeking interference with the award passed by the Tribunal. i) Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. ii) Amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14627 MFA No. 3162 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 1485 of 2017 iii) The insurance company shall deposit the remaining amount if any within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the judgement passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. v) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1