- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 769 OF 2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE AT NO 44/45 3RD FLOOR, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001 NOW REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560025. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H C VRUSHA BHENDRAIAH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI PUNITH N G SON OF GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 RESIDING AT NARASEGOWDNADIDDI VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562109. 2. SHRI KRISHNAPPA SON OF LATE GOPA HANUMANAIAH NO 1123 10TH MAIN RAGHAVENDRA BLCOK SRINAGARA BANGALORE - 560050. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.T. MADHU., ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.11.2025; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS ACCEPTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.12.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.4782/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH- 18, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.44,29,833/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION OF THE AWARD AMOUNT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) This appeal is by an Insurer calling in question the Judgment and Award dated 02.12.2022 in MVC No.4782/2018 on the file of the III Additional Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal, by this impugned Judgment and Award dated 02.12.2022, has allowed the first respondent's claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the MV Act'] granting compensation in a total sum of Rs.44,29,833/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 2. The Tribunal has found the appellant and its Insured jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, and the Tribunal has directed 50% of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 the compensation to be deposited with a Nationalized/Scheduled Bank for three years. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.44,29,833/- as under: Compensation heads Compensation amount 1. Pain and Suffering Rs.1,50,000 - 00 2. Loss of income during laid-up period and rest period Nil. 3. Medical expenses Rs.5,72,601 - 00 4. Attendant, Nourishment and Conveyance Charges Rs. 30,000 - 00 5. Loss of future income Rs.29,27,232 - 00 6. Loss of Amenities Rs. 2,00,000 - 00 7. Future medication Rs. 3,50,000 - 00 8. Loss of Marriage prospects Rs. 2,00,000 - 00 Total Rs.44,29,833 - 00 3. The first respondent's case is that on 21.12.2017 he was riding motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-42/U-9524 from Ramanagara to Bidadi, and when he was at Kenchanakuppe cross at about 9.30 p.m., the rider of other motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-41/Q-4829 dashed against his motorcycle and he suffered grievous injuries. The first - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 respondent's further case is that the rider of the offending bike shifted him to Subash Hospital, Bidadi and thereafter he was shifted to HOSMAT Hospital, Bengaluru; that he was admitted to HOSMAT Hospital on three occasions and finally discharged on 08.01.2018, and that in the interregnum he was once referred to NIMHANS Bengaluru and was admitted in Narayana Hrudayalaya between 27.12.2017 to 04.01.2018. The first respondent, because of the injuries1 suffered, is rendered paraplegic, and is confined to a wheelchair. 4. The first respondent has examined himself as PW.1 to support his claim relying upon the police documents marked as exhibits. He has also examined a Doctor from HOSMAT Hospital as PW.2, and the hospital records have also been marked as exhibits. 1 The details of the injuries suffered by the first respondent: a. Fracture of D5 vertebra with paraplegia, b. Lung contusions c. Head injury with scalp laceration d. Right 5th rib fracture. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 The Doctor [PW.2] is categorical in his evidence that the first respondent is paraplegic and is confined to a wheelchair; that he has no residual power in his lower limbs and control of bladder and bowel and as such he is on a catheter. The Doctor has further deposed that the first respondent would need assistance to turn from one side to another, and that because the first respondent has no bladder control, he will need assistance for catheter changes every three weeks and diapers regularly. The appellant [the Insurer] has examined one of its officers as RW.1 and the Investigating Officer as RW.2. The Investigating Officer is treated as a hostile witness, and he is subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the appellant. 5. The Tribunal, in the light of the afore evidence on record, while answering the Issues such as whether the first respondent proves that he has sustained injuries in the road accident on 21.12.2017 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 involving the offending motorcycle and whether he proves that he is entitled for compensation, has opined in favour of the first respondent concluding that he has proved that the rider of the offending motorcycle was responsible for the accident. When queried, Sri H.C. Vrushabhendraiah, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that he will elaborate on the appellant's grievance on the quantum of compensation but the appellant's primary grievance is with the Tribunal's finding that the first respondent has proved his case and refuted the appellant's case that he fell from the motorcycle on his own because of over speed and that the offending vehicle is falsely implicated. 6. In elaboration, Sri H.C. Vrushabhendraiah submits that this Court must consider whether the first respondent has established the involvement of the offending motorcycle in the light of the following circumstances. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 [a] The accident is on 21.12.2017, but the first information is filed with the police on 14.01.2018, after the first respondent is discharged on two occasions from HOSMAT Hospital. There is no explanation for the delay. [b] The first respondent is categorical in his evidence that his father accompanied him to M/s HOSMAT Hospital from M/s Subash Hospital, Bidadi where he was admitted immediately after the accident. [c] The records, especially Exs.R.1. and R.2, show that the history of the accident, as recorded by the Doctors at HOSMAT Hospital is that the first respondent has fallen from the motorcycle as against the accident involving another vehicle. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 [d] The change in the description of the accident is only with the Wound Certificate and discharge summary, which are issued much later after the investigation. The Investigating Officer is categorical in his evidence that he has not looked into the medico-legal register extract in filing the charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle. 7. Sri H.C. Vrushabhendraiah argues that these circumstances show that there is an effort to ensure that the compensation is received implicating the offending motorcycle; and even otherwise this Court must consider the question of contributory negligence. The learned counsel further argues that the first respondent's case is that the offending motorcycle hit from behind, but the IMV report [Ex.P.4] shows that both the motorcycles are damaged in the front and that if both the motorcycles - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 are damaged in the front, the first respondent's case that the accident is because of the offending motorcycle hit from behind which is false. 8. Sri H.C. Vrushabhendraiah canvasses that the Investigating Officer has deposed that the charge sheet is filed after notice under Section 133 of the MV Act but neither notice nor statement recorded are produced and that these should have been produced to discharge the burden of establishing not just the involvement of the motorcycle but also the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. The learned counsel emphasizes that [i] the Investigating Officer is categorical in his evidence that the first respondent/his family members were in talks with the owner/rider of the offending motorcycle and that a complaint is filed only because they took a stand against reimbursing any cost, [ii] these circumstances show that there is shrouding by the first respondent though in law he is enjoined with the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 burden of establishing involvement of the vehicle and the negligence of the rider and [iii] it would be appropriate and reasonable to infer equal contributory negligence by the first respondent. 9. Sri K. T. Madhu, the learned counsel for the first respondent, submits that indeed Exbs.R1 and R2 refer to fall from the bike as the reason for the accident but it cannot be read to mean that no other vehicle was involved, especially when the police have investigated and filed chargesheet against the rider of the motorcycle and the rider of the motorcycle has pleaded guilty. The learned counsel contends that the reason for the accident, as related to the Doctor with HOSMAT Hospital, is immediately after the accident, and the failure to specifically mention the involvement of another motorcycle cannot be held against the first respondent. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 10. Sri K. T. Madhu argues that the Investigating Officer's testimony on the manner in which the investigation is conducted leading to chargesheet against the rider of the motorcycle must be considered in the light of the fact that the rider of the motorcycle has not disputed the outcome of the investigation and has pleaded guilty, an assertion which cannot be disputed by the appellant. 11. Sri K. T. Madhu contends that the Tribunal has granted attendant charges for only a month when the Doctor [PW2] is categorical that the first respondent is confined to a wheelchair for life having to change catheter every three weeks and use diaper and that the first respondent must depend on an attendant even to turn around, and therefore, this Court must consider these circumstances while deciding the question of involvement of the offending motorcycle and contributory negligence and to ensure that there is just compensation to the claimant, who - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 will have to incur all expenses as regards the above for the entire life and that he was only 20 years at the time of accident. The learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Reshma Vs. Dajjiba Krishna Lad and Another2, to contend that the Apex Court, in a case of permanent disability is made out, has granted a sum of Rs.43,20,000/- towards attendant charges. 12. In the light of the rival submissions and the facts as recorded, the questions for consideration are: [a] Whether this Court must interfere with the Tribunal's finding on the appellant's case that it could not have been made liable to pay compensation because the offending motorcycle is falsely implicated and that the accident is because the first respondent has fallen from the bike on his own. 2 SLP (C) No.14729/2025 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 [b] Whether there must be any further compensation to the first respondent towards attendant charges though neither cross objections nor cross appeal is filed in exercise of powers under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 13. The circumstances emphasized by Mr. H. C. Vrushabhendraiah i.e., the delay in filing the FIR and the contents of the Medico Legal Case [MLC] Register and the initial medical record with the HOSMAT Hospital Pvt. Ltd., [Exbs.R1 and R2] record the reason for the accident as ‘a fall from a motorcycle’ are not in dispute. Similarly, the first respondent has not produced the complete records of the investigation also stands out. The sketch of the place of accident which accompanies the mahazar is not produced, and so are not the notice issued under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the MV Act'] and the statements recorded thereafter. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 14. The question is whether these circumstances must pursue this Court to opine that the appellant has established its burden of establishing its defense viz., that the accident is because the first respondent was fast and fell down from the bike on his own without the offending motorcycle being involved. This Court opines that other circumstances must also be considered. 15. The initial records [including the MLC] show that the history of the accident is a fall from a bike on 21.12.2017. The next records [the Wound Certificate and Discharge Summary] show that the accident involved another motorcycle. These two sets of documents are after a time gap of about two months, and in the meanwhile, the complaint filed by the first respondent's father on 14.01.2018 is investigated. As part of the investigation, the offending motorcycle is seized and subjected to inspection as is the first respondent's motorcycle. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 16. The appellant has not placed on record any material to explain the damage to the vehicle if it was not involved in the accident. This is crucial evidence as is the undisputed evidence that [a] the jurisdictional police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending motorcycle after the issuance of a notice under Section 133 of the MV Act and recording a statement, and [b] the owner/rider of the offending motorcycle has pleaded guilty. Further, there was some kind of quarrel between the first respondent's family and the owner of the motorcycle on the reimbursement of the costs incurred towards the first respondent's treatment with his hospitalization twice with HOSMAT Hospital Pvt. Ltd., and once with Narayana Hrudayalaya. 17. The appellant's case that the offending motorcycle is falsely implicated is also based on the IMV report. The contents of the IMV report is examined to determine whether the first respondent - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 has discharged the burden of establishing not just the involvement of the offending motorcycle but also that the rider of this motorcycle was entirely negligent. If the first respondent was correct in his case, that the offending vehicle came from behind and hit him, the damage to the front portion of the offending motorcycle is not explained and the absence of the damage to the rear side of his motorcycle is also not explained. The Investigating Officer, when asked about this in his cross- examination, states that the damage to the offending motorcycle has only stated that such damage is because it fell after the accident and about there being no damage on the rear side of the first respondent's motorcycle, the Investigating Officer has only stated that it could be because the contact was between the wheels of these two motorcycles. 18. This evidence shrouds what has happened in the accident, and the shrouding is taken further - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 with the first respondent failing to place on record the spot sketch and because the first respondent's father, who should have had the first account of how the accident occurred, is not examined. The shrouding and the manner in which the two motorcycles are damaged and as also the Investigating Officer's unconvincing explanation, persuades this Court to opine that the first respondent has tried to build a case of hit from the rear when there could have been a head-on collision between the two vehicles. 19. This Court, while examining the circumstances on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, must conclude that this can only be to avoid the first respondent's contribution to the accident and therefore, this Court must opine that the Tribunal has overlooked material records in concluding that the rider of the offending motorcycle was rash and negligent in riding the motorcycle without examining the question of contributory - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 negligence. The next question of apportionment is examined in the light of the circumstances discussed as also the injuries suffered by the first respondent and his own case that in the present appeal that the Tribunal should have granted him compensation towards attendant charges because for his entire life he has to be on a wheelchair and avail the assistance for his everyday work, including change of catheter every three weeks. 20. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards attendant, nourishment, and conveyance charges. It cannot be gainsaid that the first respondent could be entitled for a higher sum towards attendant charges. The claimant, as of the date of the accident, was 20 years old. If the compensation towards attendant charges is computed reasonably, the first respondent would be entitled at the rate from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.4,000/- per month, and with a multiplier of '18', he will be - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.8,60,000/-. Further, the Tribunal has computed the loss of future income taking the functional disability at 88% as against 100% functional disability. This would mean that the first respondent would have been entitled, subject to a cross-appeal or cross-objections, a further compensation. 21. In the circumstances discussed, if some part of the compensation must be deducted because of apportionment of contributory negligence, there must be an addition towards attendant charges and 100% disability. Though this Court opines that there is some contributory negligence, there should be no apportionment or deduction in the compensation because the first respondent, who is rendered paraplegic, must be granted just and reasonable compensation. The questions for consideration are answered accordingly, and the appeal stands - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48419-DB MFA No. 769 of 2023 disposed of directing the Registry to transfer the amount in deposit to the Tribunal for disbursal. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE SA,RB