- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13528 MFA No. 9247 of 2013 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. 9247 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1ST FLOOR, MADHU COMPLEX MYSORE ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT BY REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 027 BY ITS MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHARATH AGE 18 YEARS S/O NANJAPPA K.R. @ NANDEESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O RAMEGOWDA R/A KAMANAGHATTA VILAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATANA TLAUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 2. SRI T.K.KIRANKUMAR S/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A NO.NARIHALLI VILLAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13528 MFA No. 9247 of 2013 THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.89/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & MACT, CHANNRAYAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,80,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FOR Rs.1,55,000/- (EXCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF Rs.25,000/-) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. 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 order passed in M.V.C.No.89/2011 dated 18.07.2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Channarayapatna, the appellant/Insurance Company is before this Court questioning the liability. 2. It is the case of respondent No.1/claimant that on 25.04.2011 at about 4:30 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding near Didaga Tank Bund, at that time, the driver of the auto-rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, as a result of it, he had sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13528 MFA No. 9247 of 2013 the Government Hospital, C.R.Patna and from there shifted to Government Hospital, Hassan and underwent surgery and was treated as inpatient and spent sufficient amount towards medical and other incidental expenses. 3. The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that it is not established that the vehicle is involved and that the accident had happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that Exs.P-6 and P-13 i.e., the copy of the wound certificate and the copy of the MLC Register extract do not contain the registration number of the auto-rickshaw and further the accident had occurred on 25.04.2011 and the complaint was registered on 26.04.2011. It is submitted that all these things shows that there is no involvement of the vehicle. It is submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle is having - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13528 MFA No. 9247 of 2013 the license to drive the non-transport vehicle and the vehicle that is involved in this case is admittedly a transport vehicle. As such, on both on these accounts, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/claimant submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered the evidence and rightly granted the compensation and no grounds are made out seeking interference with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The accident had taken place on 25.04.2011. The claimant was taken to the hospital, according to him, in the very same auto. The Police have registered the complaint and after a full-fledged investigation had filed the charge sheet. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that Exs.P-6 and P-13 do not contain the registration number of the offending vehicle, as such the said vehicle is not involved in the accident. This Court is not able to appreciate the said contention of the learned - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13528 MFA No. 9247 of 2013 counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. Not necessarily in all the cases the medical records will contain the registration number of the vehicle. Further, the Police records and the medical records are consistent and the charge sheet was filed. This Court finds no force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. Then coming to the LMV non-transport and driving transport vehicle, in the light of the law laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited1, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court. 7. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. i. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the trial Court. 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. 1 AIR 2017 SC 3668 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13528 MFA No. 9247 of 2013 iii. No costs. iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6