- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17052 MFA No. 8875 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8875 OF 2013(MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. ANIL, S/O. SHIVAJI DAKALE, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. KAVERI NAGAR, WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD, NEAR RAHEEM SAB COMPOUND, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 048. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH. M LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K. MUNIRAJU, S/O. KRISHNAPPA, R/O. NO.399, NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE, 11TH CROSS, JAKKUR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 064. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, DO.NO.1, JYOTHI MAHAL, 2ND FLOOR, ST. MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (V/O/D 08.11.2017 NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT; BY SRI. HARINI SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.5.2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.3293/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 18TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17052 MFA No. 8875 of 2013 COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition in MVC.No.3293/2009 dated 25.05.2013 by XVIII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-4, Bangalore, the appellant/claimant is before this Court. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 11.03.2009 at about 8.30 pm., when the claimant was crossing the road, at that time, the rider of the motor cycle came from west to east direction with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and he is aged 19 years, doing coolie work and earning an amount of Rs.6,000/-. The claim petition is filed by the claimant seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. It is the case of the claimant that the Tribunal has given the finding that the claimant has produced copy of FIR at - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17052 MFA No. 8875 of 2013 Ex.P1 and copy of mahazar at Ex.P3. Both documents clearly shows that K.R.Puram traffic police have registered case against the driver of the motor cycle for the offence punishable u/s 279, 337 of IPC. Ex.P5 wound certificate relating to the claimant, in which the doctor has stated that the claimant had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. After investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet as per Ex.P2 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 of IPC against the rider of the motor cycle. 3. It is the case of the insurance company that the registration number of the offending vehicle is mentioned as KA04-EH-9558 instead of the vehicle number mentioned in the RC book KA04-EA-9558. The Insurance Company had produced the B extract from the RTO Bangalore north wherein the registration number of the offending vehicle is mentioned as KA04-EA-9558 and it is registered in the name of one Sri. K. Muniraj, that the respondent No.1 in the said case. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company also issued a registered notice to the insured Sri. K. Muniraj who has acknowledged the receipt of the notice. Then the Tribunal gives the finding that as per the documents produced by respondent No.2/Insurance company it - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17052 MFA No. 8875 of 2013 is clear that the documents pertains to the offending vehicle No.KA04-EA-9558 and not KA04-EH-9558. That such being the case the burden is on the claimant to prove only that the vehicle No.KA04-EA-9558 was involved in the accident, but not KA04-EH-9558. The Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the police documents relied on by the claimant is not consistent with his pleadings with respect to the number of the offending vehicle. There is no explanation given by the claimant in this regard and the claimant has not examined any eyewitness or I.O. who conducted the investigation to explain regarding the discrepancy in the vehicle number mentioned in the police records. Hence, from the material available on record, the Tribunal had held that the claimant had failed to prove the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle and accordingly, dismissed the petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the fact that the accident was admitted by the respondents at para No.4 of the objections filed by the respondents to the main petition. It is submitted that the Tribunal had failed to note that the mistake in mentioning the number of the vehicle in criminal - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17052 MFA No. 8875 of 2013 case has also occurred in the original policy. Therefore, it is a mistake committed by oversight by the police and the insurer also and the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition and awarded the just and reasonable compensation. It is further submitted that for the injuries sustained by the claimant, the claimant is entitled for the compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company submits that if it is the case of the claimant that the insured vehicle is involved in the accident and he had sustained injuries, then an application is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the burden lies on him to prove the same. It is submitted that when there is a discrepancy with regard to the number that is mentioned, as per the police records and the number of the insured vehicle, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Before going into the merits of the matter it is appropriate to look at the evidence of respondent No.2. It is stated that the insurance company has - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17052 MFA No. 8875 of 2013 filed the written statement denying all the averments made in the claim petition. However, during the course of the proceedings, it has come to the knowledge of the respondents that in the petition as well as in the FIR and charge sheet filed by the police against the driver of the offending vehicle, the registration number of the offending vehicle is mentioned as KA04-EH-9558 instead of the vehicle number mentioned in the RC book as KA04-EA-9558 and in that regard respondent No.2/Insurance Company has procured the B extract from the RTO Bangalore north wherein the registration number of the offending vehicle is mentioned as KA04-EA-9558 and it is registered in the name of one Sri. K. Muniraj. When it comes to the objections that are filed before the Tribunal to the main petition, it is stated that the respondents have issued the policy for the period covering from 26.03.2008. In respect of the policy of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA04-EH-9558 which belonged to the respondent and the liability if any is as per the conditions of the policy of the insurance issued by the respondent in favour of respondent No.1 only and nothing more. They have also admitted the accident and stated that the accident has occurred not due to the rash and negligent riding - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17052 MFA No. 8875 of 2013 of the motorcycle belonged to respondent No.1 and driven, but due to the carelessness and negligence of the claimant himself in suddenly crossing the road in the middle of the road without making use of the pedestrian crossing much against the traffic rules. Then, an additional written statement is filed by the insurance company in which it is stated that the claimant has filed one application for amendment of the petition for insertion of the vehicle bearing No.KA04-EA-9558 instead of KA04-EH- 9558 in the cause title at page No.1 and also at column No.14(a) and in column No.22 of the petition, claiming that there is a typographical error in typing the vehicle number in the petition is not fully correct. It is stated that the mistake has not only occurred in the petition, but also in the FIR and charge sheet filed by the police. The correct vehicle number is KA04- EA-9558 is found only in the RC book. In all other documents including the insurance policy, the vehicle number is mentioned as KA04-EH-9558. They have also stated that it is not sufficient if the amendment is carried out only in the petition and the corrections have to be carried out in the FIR, charge sheet also policy copy to make it perfect and to fall in line with the RC book and otherwise the award passed by the Tribunal would be - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17052 MFA No. 8875 of 2013 improper. A close perusal of the evidence, the written statement and additional written statement would reveal that occurrence of the accident is accepted and with regard to the vehicle is also there is no dispute. Only the exception that is taken is the vehicle number that is mentioned in the FIR, charge sheet and in the petition. When the amendment petition is filed, they do accept that except in the RC book, even in the insurance policy also, the number of the vehicle is wrongly mentioned. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle is involved and as the same is insured by the insurance company, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 7. Then, coming to the quantum of compensation, the claimant had sustained the fractures, under the head of pain and suffering this Court is granting an amount of Rs.40,000/-. As this accident had occurred in the year 2009, as per the chart prepared by the Legal Services Authority, the notional income is taken at an amount of Rs.5,000/-, towards loss of income during the laid up period, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.15,000/-(5,000X3). Coming to the loss of future income, it is the evidence of the doctor that the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17052 MFA No. 8875 of 2013 disability to the whole limb is 32%. Then the disability to the whole body has to be taken at 11%. Hence, towards future loss of income, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.1,18,800/- (5,000X12X18X11/100). Considering the disability of 11%, under the head of loss of amenities, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Attendant, nourishment and transport charges, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.15,000/-. 8. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Another1, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. 9. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and suffering : Rs. 40,000/- 2. Loss of income during laid up period : Rs. 15,000/- 3. Loss of future income (5,000x12x18X11/100) : Rs. 1,18,800/- 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17052 MFA No. 8875 of 2013 4. Loss of amenities : Rs. 20,000/- 6. Attendant, nourishment and transport charges : Rs. 15,000/- 7. Legal Expenses : Rs. 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 2,18,800/- 10. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.2,18,800/-. 11. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is partly allowed by fixing the liability on the insurance company holding that the offending vehicle is insured with insurance company as such the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of an amount of Rs.2,18,800/-. i. The *compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till now. ii. The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iii. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount 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. iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified *Corrected vide chamber order dated: 25/06/2025. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17052 MFA No. 8875 of 2013 copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. v. No costs. vi. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2