- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103152 OF 2014 (MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100054 OF 2024 IN MFA NO. 103152 OF 2014 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MUJAWAR ARACADE, P.B ROAD, NEHRUNAGAR, BELGAUM, R/BY. ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, THE ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD, SUBRAMANIAN BUILDING, IIND FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PARASHRAM PIRAJI CHOUGULE, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 2. SMT. RENUKA W/O. PARASHRAM CHOUGULE, AGE 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 3. KUMAR SUNIL S/O. PARASHRAM CHOUGALE, AGE 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 4. KUMAR AKSHATA D/O. PARASHRAM CHOUGALE, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 AGE 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, ALL ARE R/O. NETAJI GALLI, BATASWAD, TAL: BELGAUM. RESPONDENT NO.4 BEING MINOR REPTD. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1. 5. SMT. LAXMI RAMLING PATIL, AGE MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KUDREMANI, TAL & DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND HEAR THE PARTIES AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.08.2014 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT BELGAUM AT BELGAUM MVC NO.611/2013 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA CROB NO. 100054 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PARASHARAM PIRAJI CHOUGULE, AGE 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NETAJI GALLI, BASTAWAD, TAL & DIST. BELAGAVI-590020. 2. SMT. RENUKA W/O. PARASHARAM CHOUGULE, AGE 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NETAJI GALLI, BASTAWAD, TAL & DIST. BELAGAVI-590020. 3. KUM. SUNIL S/O. PARASHARAM CHOUGULE, AGE 29 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 R/O. NETAJI GALLI, BASTAWAD, TAL & DIST. BELAGAVI-590020. 4. KUM. AKSHATA D/O. PARASHARAM CHOUGULE, AGE 27 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. NETAJI GALLI, BASTAWAD, TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590020. …CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAXMI RAMALING PATIL, AGE MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KUDREMANI, TAL: DIST: BELAGAVI-591128. 2. THE MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MUJAWAR ARCADE, P. B. ROAD, NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.103152/2014 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO, JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.08.2014 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.611/2013 IN AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.10,17,000/- AND INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6 PERCENT FROM THE DATED OF PETITION AND MAY BE KINDLY MODIFIED BY ENHANCING AS PRAYED FOR, WITH 18 PERCENT INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL AND CROB, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) MFA.No.103152/2014 is filed by the insurer and MFA.CROB.NO.100054/2024 is filed by the claimants, challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 22.08.2014 passed in MVC.No.611/2013 by the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belgaum. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case of both the parties before the Tribunal is that: It is the case of the claimant that on 02.03.2013 in the night the deceased Lakhan Parasharam Chougale was proceeding to Bastawad village on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA.22/EF-9267 and he was riding the said vehicle with care and caution on service road, within a the limit of Halaga village, in front of Pandiyan road lines office at 11.30 pm, the driver of the Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.KA- 22B-2267, drove the vehicle from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, as a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries at the spot. 4. Claimant No.1 – father of the deceased lodged the complaint to the police about the accident. He was unaware of vehicle Registration of vehicle, hence he did not furnish. The police officials investigated the case and it appears that Maruthi Ramaling Patil i.e. son of R.C. holder of the vehicle, given a statement before the police that on the date of accident, he was also traveling in the offending vehicle and stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, coming from opposite direction. On the basis of the said information, the investigating officer proceeded with further investigation and after the conclusion of the investigation, driver of the said offending vehicle was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A and 201 of IPC read with Section 197 of MV Act. 5. The claimants further contented that deceased was aged about 19 years and he was hale and healthy and he was working as a mason & doing coolie work and was earning - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 Rs.12,000/- per month. He was unmarried and was contributing his income to the family. Due to his untimely death, the claimants have been suffering mentally and financially. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.15 lakhs. 6. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and in her statement she has admitted the fact of the accident and according to her contention, the deceased was riding the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and due to his negligence, accident had taken place. Hence she is not liable to pay the compensation. The insurer has filed detailed objection denying the contentions of the claimants. She denied all other averments stated in the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. It is further stated that the vehicle was falsely implicated in the case just to claim compensation. There are no sufficient materials to show the involvement of the vehicle. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the deceased and there are no materials to show that deceased had driving license to ride the motor - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 cycle. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further contended that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and not holding of valid and effective driving license by the driver of the vehicle. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed following issues: 1. Whether petitioners prove that Mr. Lakhan Parashuram Chougale, died in Road Traffic Accident occurred on 02.03.2013 at 23:30 hours on service road, within the limits of Halaga village, in front of Pandiyan Road lines, on account of actionable negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.KA-22/b- 2267? 2. Whether the respondent no.2 proves that the rider of the vehicle No.KA.22/B-2267 was not holding valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle in question was not validly insured? 3. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? 4. What order or award? - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 9. The claimants to prove their case examined PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R3. After hearing both the parties, appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal by the impugned Judgment and award partly allowed the claim petition, and awarded the compensation of Rs.10,17,000/- was awarded and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the said amount of compensation. 10. Being aggrieved by the said findings, the insurer filed the appeal in MFA.No.103152/2014 challenging of fastening of the liability on it to pay compensation and also challenged the quantum. The claimants being unsatisfied by the amount awarded, have filed MFA.Crob.No.100054/2024, for enhancement. 11. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both the sides. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer vehemently contended that admittedly PW-1 is not an eye witness and no eye witnesses were examined by the claimants. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 There are no materials to show that investigation officer had examined any of witnesses to ascertain the involvement of the vehicle. In the charge sheet, it is mentioned that owner of the vehicle went to the police station and given statement that vehicle was belonging to his mother, and in the accident there was minor damages to the vehicle i.e, damage to the rear view mirror and break of head light glass. Both the damage of the vehicle were got repaired and replaced in the garage. The said contention is not believable. 13. No eye witnesses were examined by the claimant, to prove the involvement of the vehicle. It is burden on the claimants that prima facie they have to prove the involvement of the vehicle. In the absence of any such reliable evidence. Only basing on the charge sheet, the Tribunal answer of issue No.1 is highly incorrect. The owner of the vehicle two days after the date of accident said to have went to police station and given statement before the police that vehicle involved in the accident belongs to his mother. The said statement is not believable. It clearly indicates that the claimants with collusion with the driver, owner and police, have created the story of involvement of the offending vehicle. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 14. Learned counsel for the insurer further submits that the insurer has appointed the investigator to investigate the case. The said investigator submitted a detailed report, which is marked as Ex.R3. The said detailed report clearly indicates that the alleged offending Bolero vehicle was falsely implicated in this case. The Tribunal has not considered these facts and only on the basis of the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal directed the respondent to pay the compensation and said finding is erroneous and interference by this Court is required. 15. Learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contends that in the motor vehicle compensation case, it is not necessary that rash and negligent driving has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is sufficient to prove that accident was caused due to involvement of the vehicle. The claimants have produced the charge sheet and its enclosures; it also includes the statement of son of the owner of the said vehicle, wherein he has stated that the said vehicle was involved in the accident and he was witness to the said accident. His statement was accepted by the investigating - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 officer. He further contends that the owner of the garage where the said vehicle was got repaired, was examined by the investigating officer and his statement was recorded. It shows that he got repaired the said vehicle, which met with an accident and in the said accident, its right side rear mirror glass was broken and head light glass was also broken and he replaced both of them. He also stated that on 03.02.2013, the said fact was informed to him by the driver. In the spot mahazar, the investigating officer seizes the broken glass pieces of indicator light, rear view mirror and other parts. It is specifically mentioned that looking to the right side rear view mirror, it appears that a new mirror was replaced. These facts shows that the said vehicle was involved in the accident. Therefore, the contention of the insurer is not sustainable. He further contends that the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle was not challenged either by the owner or the insurer or by the driver of the vehicle; without challenging the same, the insurer cannot dispute the accident. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurer. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 16. He further submits that income of the deceased was not properly considered by the Tribunal. The income of the deceased is taken by the Tribunal as Rs.6,000/- P.M., instead of Rs.12,000/- P.M. Even if the lok adalath chart is considered, the income would be taken as Rs.7,000/-. However, the same is not considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, it needs to be re-considered. Further, he has stated that the amount of compensation awarded under different heads are also meager and prays for enhancement of the same. He further submits that the Tribunal has taken the future prospectus as 15% and it should have taken the same as 40% in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS1 and assessed the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to enhance the amount of compensation. 17. The following points emerges for my determination: i. Whether the Tribunal has erred in holding that accident had taken place due to involvement of vehicle bearing No.KA-22B-2267 ? 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 ii. Whether the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal needs enhancement? iii. Whether the findings of the Tribunal needs interference by this Court? 18. The fact of incident and involvement of the offending vehicle is seriously disputed by the insurer. The said contention is primarily on the basis of delay in lodging the complaint. And there are no materials to believe that any eye witness to the incident informed to the police about the involvement of the said vehicle. The claimants contend that son of the owner of the vehicle, who was traveling in the offending vehicle has stated before the police about the accident. Seizure of broken pieces of the rear view mirror glass, plastic covers etc., and damage to the head light glass from the spot of incidents and, similarly, statement of the owner of the garage, who repaired his car are sufficient to connected the said vehicle with the accident. 19. Learned counsel for the claimants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil)No.8551/2024) in the case of Geetha Dubey and others - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 vs. United India Insurance Co., Ltd and others where in it is held that: 20. Firstly, it is well settled that in claim cases, in case the accident is disputed or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in issue, the claimant is only expected to prove the same on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. 20. The claimants also relied on the judgment in the case of in Civil Appeal Nos.3465-3466/2025 in the case of Prabhavathi & others vs. The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation, wherein it is held that: "13. It is the settled law that under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is established that in compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply. “22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties". 21. Keeping in mind the contentions of the parties and materials available on record and law laid down in the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 aforementioned cases, let me scan the contentions of both the parties. 22. According to claimants, accident had taken place on 02.03.2013 at about 11.45 p.m. The fact of the accident was informed to the complainant i.e. father of deceased Yellappa. Even the said yellappa was not an eye witness. On the basis of the said information, claimant No.1 visited the spot and thereafter reported the fact of the accident to police on 03.03.2013 i.e around 3.00 a.m. There is no much delay in reporting of the case to the police. Therefore, the contention of the insured that exorbitant delay in lodging the complaint to the police is not tenable. 23. The second contention is, in the charge sheet there are no eye witness to the incident. The son of the owner of the vehicle was said to be the passenger of the said vehicle but he did not report the fact of the accident to the police or even try to shift the injured to the hospital. It is vehemently contended that since the owner of the vehicle and claimants have colluded, the son of the owner of the vehicle is a planted witness. It is not in dispute that son of the owner did not inform the fact of - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 the accident immediately to the police, which is the duty against him under Section 133 and 134 of Motor Vehicle Act. He was said to be traveling in the offending vehicle and witness to the accident. According to his statement recorded by the police, he got down from the vehicle and saw the victim, by that time, the victim was already dead. The driver of the vehicle without stopping the vehicle left the spot of the accident. 24. According to the statement given by Maruthi Patil i.e. son of the owner, right side rear mirror was damaged in addition to damage of the head light. He has also stated before the police that the said damage was got repaired by the owner of the garage. The owner of the garage also stated that the said damage was repaired by him and driver of the said vehicle also informed him about the accident. Learned counsel for the claimants contend that on the basis of the statement of Maruthi Patil and Uday Lohar the investigating officer charge sheeted the driver of the said vehicle and it is a prima facie case, therefore there is no need of examination of the said witness to prove the fact of the accident. Filing of Chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle is sufficient proof of - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 involvement of the vehicle. In the normal circumstances, the said facts are sufficient. There is no need that in each and every case, eye witness of the incident has to be examined by the claimants. However, in this case, the facts are very peculiar. The said Maruthi Patil did not take any interest in providing the treatment to the deceased, immediately after the accident. There is no explanation for not providing treatment to victim of the accident or not reporting to police about accident. It appears both of them escaped from the sport just to evade the accident. The said Maruti two days after personally goes to police and states about involvement of vehicle of his father in the accident. The said conduct appears to be doubtful. the owner of the garage specifically stated that he repaired the said vehicle and replaced the broken rear view glass as well as the head light. His statement was recorded on 13.03.2013. It appears that on the same day the said vehicle was seized by the police. The mahazar is produced at Ex.P4. The investigating officer has also mentioned that looking to the right side head light as well as rear view mirror glass, they appears to have been replaced. On the next day of 14.03.2013, the motor vehicle inspector has inspected the vehicle and reported - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 that ‘right side rear view mirror was damaged and not other inside damage.” The said report of the motor vehicle inspector is contrary to the statement given by the owner of the garage as well as the mahazar of seizure of the vehicle. If it was already replaced and new glass was fixed then how could the motor vehicle inspector found damaged rear view mirror? The learned counsel for the claimants submits that the said report was on the basis of the statement of the owner of garage. The said statement is contrary to the chargesheet. It is the duty of the motor vehicle inspector, to actually inspect the vehicle and give the report. There is no consistency in this regard between the statement of the owner of the garage and son of the owner of the motor vehicle. The above said facts create doubt regarding the investigation done by the investigating officer. 25. It is not necessary that in the motor vehicle compensation cases, fact of the accident should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But at least the statement of the witness recorded by the investigating officer shall prima facie inspire minds of the prudent person to believe that such incident must have taken place. Admittedly, the accident had taken place at 11.45 pm. It is said to be near highway. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 Unfortunately the investigating officer could not get any of the eye witness to the accident and on the basis of the statement of the son of the owner as well as garage owner, the said vehicle was said to have involved in the accident, which highly doubtful. Therefore, the claimants were not able to prove that accident had taken place due to involvement of the vehicle bearing No.KA.22B-2267. 26. The Tribunal did not consider these facts properly and appreciated the evidence on record. Therefore, committed an error in accepting the case of the claimant that the accident had taken place by the involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22B-2267. Hence, the said points is answered in the affirmative. Point No.2: Claimants praying for enhancement of the compensation. If the fact of accident is proved, the question of payment of compensation or its enhancement will arise. Since the involvement of the vehicle is not proved, the question of enhancement of compensation does not arise. Hence, the said point is answered in the 'Negative'. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4646 MFA No. 103152 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100054 of 2024 For the reasons discussed above, interference in the findings of the Tribunal is required. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered in the affirmative. For the reasons stated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal in MFA.No.103152/2014 is allowed. ii. Appeal in MFA.CROB.No.100054/2024 is dismissed. iii. The judgment and award passed Dt: 27.08.2014 in MVC.No.611/2013 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belgaum, is set aside. iv. Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant - insurer, shall be refunded to him on due identification. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6