- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20181 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, TP-HUB, II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580029. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VAISHALI W/O. ASHOK POL, AGE 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEJ VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SHYMARAO ASHOK POL, AGE 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. NEJ VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. (SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY M/G NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1. 3. SMT. SHAKUNTALA W/O. SHANKAR POL, AGE 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEJ VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. 4. SRI. LAGAMANNA BHARAMAPPA KARAGAVE, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. ITNAL VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 (BY SRI. S. S. HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3, R2 IS MINOR REPTD. BY R1; NOTICE TO R4 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 173(1) MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS HEAR THE PARTIES AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.08.2011 IN MVC NO.1206/2010 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL AND DISTRICT JUDGE, FAST TRACT COURT-I, CHIKKODI, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) Respondent No.2-insurer has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 16.08.2011 passed in MVC.No.1206/2010 by the MACT and District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Claimants – respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act praying to award compensation for the death of one Ashok. The Tribunal after trial, awarded compensation by the impugned award and the same is challenged by the insurer in the present appeal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 3. I refer to the parties as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the deceased – Ashok was the husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner No.2 and son of petitioner No.3. On 11.08.2009, Ashok met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.KA- 22-1253 as a result of which Ashok sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injury. It was also contended that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a contractor and he was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 5. The owner of the vehicle remained absent though notice was duly served. The insurer – respondent No.2 appeared and filed the written statement denying the contention of the claim petitioners and it has specifically contended that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case to get the compensation. It also denied its - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. The claimants to prove their case examined petitioner No.3 as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. Respondents have got marked the copy of the policy as Ex.R1. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.KA- 22-1253 by its driver and the said Ashok died in the accident. The Tribunal awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.5,85,112/- along with 9% interest per annum, under following heads: SL. No. PARTICULARS AMOUNT IN (RS.) 1. Loss of dependency 5,60,112 2. Loss of expectancy of life 10,000 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 3. Loss of consortium 10,000 4. Transportation of dead body 2,000 5. Funeral expenses 3,000 Total 5,85,112 8. The appellant challenged the impugned award mainly on two grounds. One is the offending lorry was falsely implicated in this case and there are no materials to show that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the said vehicle. The claimants did not examine the material witness to connect the said lorry with the accident. PW-1 is not an eye witness. The investigating officer has not been examined by the claimants. In the absence of the material evidence, connecting the lorry with the accident, the Tribunal erroneously held that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the lorry. The author of Ex.P10 and P11 i.e witnesses who have stated before the investigating officer about the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 involvement of the lorry were not examined. Hence involvement of lorry is not proved. 9. The 2nd ground of attack that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and even the interest awarded is @ 9% per annum, that is also much higher side. On these two grounds, respondent No.2 has challenged the impugned judgment. 10. The learned Advocate for appellants submits that the Tribunal appreciating the evidence of PW1 and charge sheet filed against the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-22-1253, held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry. But PW-1 is not an eye witness. One Baba Saheba Shivappa Kengare of Neja village, Chikodi Taluk and Ravasaaba Tukarama Ladakarni are said to be the witnesses to the accident but they were not examined by the claimants. Both the said witnesses are residents of Neja village. If really they had seen the accident they could have informed the said fact to the claimants or even - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 to the police on the date of accident. It shows that both of them are planted witnesses to the case. It is further contended that the said vehicle was seized after three months from the date of the alleged accident. These facts clearly indicate that the vehicle was falsely implicated in the present case. Unless it is proved that the accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of the offending lorry, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on insurance company to pay the compensation. Therefore, the said findings are erroneous. Hence prayed to allow the appeal and set aside impugned judgment. 11. The learned counsel for respondents – claimants vehemently contended that immediately after the accident, the complaint was lodged in the police station within reasonable time and FIR was registered. At the time of lodging the complaint, as per Ex.P1, she had no knowledge about the vehicle number. Thereafter, she has given further statement on 18.11.2009 stating about the vehicle number. On the basis of the information - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 furnished to the police, the investigating officer examined the witness Baba Saheba and Rao Saheba and recorded their statement as per Exs.P10 and 11. On that basis got information about the lorry involved in the accident. The investigating officer seized the said lorry. It was examined by Motor Vehicle Inspector and after completing the investigation formalities, the driver of the lorry was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. 12. Learned counsel appearing for claimants further contended that the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer prima facie shows that the said vehicle was involved in the accident. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the witness under the provision of Cr.P.C and charge sheeted the accused. The motor vehicle compensation cases are summary trial proceedings and strict rule of evidence is not applicable. The charge sheet and its enclosures are produced before the Court. To show the involvement of the vehicle, claimants have - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 produced Exs.P10 and P11. The person who disputes the said material has to summon and has to get explanation from the investigating officer as to how the said witness came to know about the involvement of the lorry in the accident. The appellant – Insurance Company did not examine any witness or even not stepped into the witness box and on oath rebutted the evidence of the claimants. Mere denial is not sufficient to disbelieve or discard the investigation process. Therefore, the contentions of the appellant are not sustainable. 13. Learned counsel for the claimants further contends that PW-1 was cross-examined by the appellant –Insurance company and nothing was brought out in her evidence to discard it. She has also stated that the persons who informed her about the involvement of the said lorry, thereafter she went to police station and reported about the incident. It was suggested to PW1 in her cross-examination that she colluded with the police, owner and driver of the vehicle, and falsely charge - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 sheeted the driver, which is not probable. The Tribunal has considered these facts and rightly granted the compensation. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. He further submits that interest awarded by the Tribunal is at discretion and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as date on which the Tribunal had passed the award, interference in the said findings is not required. Hence prayed to dismiss the appeal. 14. Following question arises for my consideration: 1. Whether MACT erred in holding that accident was caused due to involvement of lorry bearing No.KA-22/1253? 2. Whether question of compensation and interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side? 3. What order? Point No.1: 15. Claimant No.3 was examined as PW-1. She is not the eye witness but on the basis of the information received she went to the spot of the accident as - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 mentioned in the complaint, saw the death of her son and thereafter claimant No.1 lodged the complaint as per EX.P1. On that basis, FIR No. 133/2009 was registered. Investigation formalities were completed by the Station House Officer, Sadalaga police station, Chikodi. It appears during the course of investigation, the statement of one Baba Saheba Shivappa Khengare and Ravasaaba Tukarama Ladakarni were recorded, as per Ex.P10 & 11 respectively who are the said eye witnesses to the incident. The said statement was recorded on 05.11.2009. Thereafter the said vehicle was seized by the police on 18.11.2009. On the date of drawing of the mahazar, both driver and owner of the lorry went to the police station and produced the vehicle. The said vehicle was inspected by the motor vehicle inspector and on conclusion of the investigation, Circle inspector of Chikodi taluk, submitted the charge sheet to the JMFC, Chikodi. It appears that criminal case was registered in C.C.No.158/2010. On the basis of the said charge sheet, it is noted in Ex.P12. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 16. The contention of the appellant that at the insistence of the claimants, the owner of the driver has produced the vehicle to the police station. Neither owner nor driver challenged the said case. During the evidence, it was not brought out that the owner, driver, claimant and police have colluded together to file the charge sheet against driver just to claim the compensation. Looking to the address of the claimants, it appears that claimant No.1 & 3 are rustic villagers. It is not brought out that they were influential persons and influenced the police or other authorities so that the authority could falsely implicate another vehicle just to enable them to claim the compensation. The post mortem report reveals that death of Ashok was due to vehicle accident and such injuries could be possible in an accident. Before registering the case against the driver of the offending lorry, the post mortem report was conducted. Therefore, the accident was caused by the vehicle and death of Ashok was caused by the vehicle. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 17. Baba Saheba Shivappa Khengare and Ravasaaba Tukarama Ladakarni are eye witnesses. Their statements were recorded by the police as per Ex.P10 & 11. In Criminal proceedings, the investigating officer is empowered under the provision of CR.P.C or BNSS to examine the witness, called materials and if he found that prima facia case is made out then he can file charge sheet before the Court. Provision of motor vehicle act pertaining to claiming of compensation is benevolent legislation. It shall be considered with that object for illustration a person becomes victim of an accident at unknown/unfamiliar place, then it may be rather impossible for him to prove the statement of relevant witness by examining them before MACT if it were filed in the jurisdictional MACT wherein he resides. Therefore there is not object behind ending Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is not placed on record by the appellant that in the criminal case registered against the driver of the lorry, it was held by the Court that it was false case filed against him for causing the accident in question. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 Hence contention of false implication of lorry is presumption of insurer. It may be true that statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C cannot be considered as substantial evidence but can be used only to contradict the statement of the witness while the said witness is examined before the Court. The accused names in the charge-sheet shall appear before Court and face trial. Till the judgment is passed, the Court has to proceed on the basis of charge-sheet. Hence only on the ground that said witnesses were not examined by the claimants cannot be ground to dismiss the claim petition. 18. The burden of proving the involvement of the vehicle and rash and negligent driving in motor vehicle compensation cases and criminal cases are different. In the claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, it is sufficient to prove that the said vehicle was involved in the accident and driver of such vehicle caused the accident. Said facts in normal circumstances can be prima facie proved by production of charge-sheet and - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 necessary enclosures. And only on exceptional cases where contents create serious doubt or contention of claimants are contrary to charge-sheet, it is necessary to prove the facts. 19. It appears on the basis of the delay in mentioning the vehicle number or seizure of the vehicle by the investigating officer might be the reason for appellant – insurer to suspect about the involvement of the said vehicle. If really the claimants intend to falsely implicate the said vehicle, it may not be necessary for them to wait for so much time. The insurance companies have their own investigation term who are paid to investigate and report to the concerned Insurance companies. The respondent No.2 has not produced any such report or examined such investigating officers to rebut the charge- sheet. No such pains were taken by the respondent No.2. Therefore, in every case, wherein FIR was delayed or investigation was delayed or seizure of the vehicle was delayed, cannot be a reason to suspect the occurrence of - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 the accident. Therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard is not tenable. 20. Looking to the materials placed on record, the learned trial Judge rightly held that accident had taken place due to involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22-1253. According the question No.1 is answered in the Negative. Point No.1: 21. The claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, the oral submission of learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 is noted to reconsider the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 22. The appellant contends that even the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The Tribunal considering age of deceased and occupation of the deceased assessed his income, multiplier and deductions. The Tribunal considering the contentions of the parties properly assessed compensation. It does not call for - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 interference. The Tribunal awarded interest @ 9% per annum. Awarding of interest is at the discretion of the Tribunal. Claimant claimed interest @ 18% per annum and the said claim was rejected and exercising the discretion and probably considering the current rate of interest, the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation. Said finding does not call for interference. 23. For above said reasons question No.2 is answered in the Negative. 24. For the above said discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 16.08.2011 passed in MVC.No.1206/2010 by the MACT and District Judge, Fast Track Court- I, Chikodi, is confirmed. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4261 MFA No. 20181 of 2012 iii. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with the copy of the judgment to the Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG / CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2