- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23058 MFA No. 5841 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5841 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MMK COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, P J EXTENSION DAVANAGERE REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER MR SURENDRA P GAONKAR …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI P BEERESHA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O SRI PARAMESHWARAPPA RESIDING NEAR SHASTRI GINNING MACHINE NES EXTENSION, HOSADURGA TOWN CHITRDURGA DISTRICT 2. SRI T PALANI SWAMY MAJOR S/O THIRUMALA GOUNDER #3734/4, SRI KRISHNA ENGINEERING WORKS COMPOUND, OPP: OLD BUS STAND P.M.ROAD DAVANAGERE (OWNER OF BUS NO.KA.17/A-9020) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DEEPA.J, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. R SATISH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23058 MFA No. 5841 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.05.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.277/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, HOSADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,31,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal is filed by the insurer calling in question the judgment and award dated 03.05.2017 passed in MVC No.277/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga1. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that the claimant, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident occurred on 25.11.2013, was an occupant of the bus filed a claim petition arraying the owner and insurer of the offending bus as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1- owner of the bus remained ex parte before 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23058 MFA No. 5841 of 2017 the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 – insurer contested the claim proceedings by filing a statement of objections. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor as PW.2. The representative of the insurer was examined as RW.1 and a doctor as RW.2. The Tribunal, vide judgment and award dated 3.5.2017, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of `2,31,800/- together with interest at 6% pa., and held that the insurer of the bus is liable to pay the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the insurer. 4. It is the contention of the insurer in the present appeal that the finding of the Tribunal that the bus was involved in the accident is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant justifies the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding negligence. He further contended that a reasonable amount of compensation has been awarded and that the judgment and award of the Tribunal ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23058 MFA No. 5841 of 2017 6. The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the material on record, including the records of the Tribunal has been perused. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the finding of the Tribunal holding that the bus was involved in the accident is just and proper? 7. It is the case of the claimant that he was traveling in the bus and when the said bus reached Kabbala village at 10.10 p.m., it stopped at the Kabbala bus stand and when the claimant attempted to get down from the bus, the driver of the bus suddenly moved the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing the accident in question, wherein the claimant fell down from the bus and sustained injuries. It is the further case of the claimant that the father-in-law of the claimant, who came to know of the accident, immediately called an ambulance and the claimant was shifted to the Government Hospital, Hosadurga. Thereafter, upon medical advice, the claimant was shifted to Basaveshwara Hospital, Chitradurga and subsequently, to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, for further treatment. The insurer of the bus in the statement of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23058 MFA No. 5841 of 2017 objections has merely denied the averments made in the claim petition. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor, as PW.2. The representative of the insurer was examined as RW.1 and the doctor from the Government Hospital, Hosadurga, was examined as RW.2. 8. The Tribunal, while appreciating the case put forth by the claimant has recorded the following findings: “11. It is the version of RW-1 that accident took place at 10.10 P.M. as per charge sheet and other police records; whereas as per wound certificate it took place at 8.10 P.M. RW-2 being medical officer of Hosadurga government hospital, who treated the petitioner, states that petitioner visited the hospital at 10.30 P.M. with a history of RTA and the accident took place at 8.10 P.M. as per entries in the MLC register and same has been mentioned in wound certificate at Ex.P8. Of course, wound certificate reveals that the petitioner sustained injuries due to RTA that occurred at 8.10 P.M. at Kabbala Bus Stop. What is recorded in MLC register is mentioned in wound certificate and same is deposed by RW-2. Virtually the respondent No.2 has not disputed the fact that petitioner received injuries in RTA and he was treated at Government Hospital, Hosadurga at 10.30 P.M. The respondent No.2 has not challenged the charge sheet and other police records which are evident to show that accident took place at Kabbala Bus Stand at 10.10 P.M. Wound certificate also evidences that accident took place at Kabbala Bus Stop on 25/11/2013. The only discrepancy which could be noticed is time of accident. Nothing has been brought on record to show that petitioner sustained injuries in other accident that took place at Kabbala bus stand on same day. In the absence of evidence to contrary what could be inferred is at the time of recording MLC time of accident appears to have been wrongly mentioned 8.10 P.M. instead of 10.10 P.M. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23058 MFA No. 5841 of 2017 Had petitioner sustained injuries in any other RTA at 8.10 P.M. he would have visited the hospital immediately after the accident within reasonable time and he would not have waited till 10.30 P.Μ. 12. On careful examination of oral and documentary evidence available on record we can come to the conclusion that accident occurred on 25/11/2013 at 10.10 P.M. at Kabbala bus stand as has been spoken by PW-1 and emerged in police records and due to oversight or inadvertence error occurred in mentioning the time of accident. The testimony of PW-1 coupled with police records would suffice to prove that the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the said Bus. The wound certificate and other medical records would show that the petitioner sustained fracture of right femur and other multiple injuries as a result of accident. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It is clear that the case put forth by the insurer is that in the wound certificate (Ex.P8) the time of the accident is mentioned as 8.10 p.m. However, it is forthcoming from Ex.P8 that the claimant was brought to the hospital for treatment on 25.11.2013 at 10.30 pm. The endorsement made in Ex.P8 has been deposed by RW.2. The Tribunal, while appreciating the said material on record has recorded a finding that the time of the accident as 8.10 p.m., mentioned in Ex.P8 is erroneously mentioned. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23058 MFA No. 5841 of 2017 10. It is further relevant to note that apart from the testimony of claimant – PW.1, the police records i.e., the FIR (Ex.P1), the complaint (Ex.P2) as well as charge sheet (Ex.P9) indicates the manner of the occurrence of the accident as averred by the claimant in the claim petition. 11. Although, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer that the insurer having disputed the involvement of the insured bus, as also the manner of the occurrence of the accident and having examined RWs.1 and 2 to demonstrate its defence, in the absence of the claimant examining any other eye-witness, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be interfered with is not liable to be accepted in view of the fact that the claimant has deposed as to the manner of the occurrence of the accident, coupled with the fact that the police documents pertaining to the investigation conducted by the police have been produced. Ex.P8 is the solitary document, where the time of the accident is mentioned as 8.10 p.m., and RW.2 has merely deposed to the fact that the time of the accident mentioned in Ex.P8 is 8.10 pm. The testimony of RW.1 does not in any manner aid - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23058 MFA No. 5841 of 2017 the case of the appellant since he is not an eye-witness to the accident. 12. In the absence of the appellant/insurer in any manner, demonstrating that the investigation conducted by the police authorities itself was faulty or pointing out any other lapses in the charge sheet filed by the police authorities against the driver of the bus, the sole reliance placed on Ex.P8 and the testimony of RW.2 will not aid the case of the insurer to seek for interference with the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence. 13. In view of the aforementioned, the question framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 14. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The above appeal is dismissed; ii. The judgment and award dated 03.05.2017 passed in MVC No.277/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, is affirmed; iii. The amount deposited by the appellant be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23058 MFA No. 5841 of 2017 iv. The appellant/insurer shall deposit the balance compensation amount, if any, together with accrued interest within six weeks; v. The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly; vi. Records of the Tribunal be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. No costs. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57