- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.25644 OF 2011 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24183 OF 2011 IN M.F.A. NO.25644 OF 2011 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ICICI BANK TOWER BANDRA KURALA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST MUMBAI THROUGH ITS MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND PLOT, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMACHANDRA DASHARATH YADAV, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1(A) SMT. MANGALA W/O. RAMACHANDRA YADAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SIDDAPURWADI, TALUK: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1(B) SMT. NARMADA D/O. RAMACHANDRA YADAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SIDDAPURWADI, TALUK: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1(C) SRI. MURALIDHAR S W/O. RAMACHANDRA YADAV, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIDDAPURWADI, TALUK: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. RAMACHANDRA SHIVAPPA CHINCHALE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: INGALI, TALUK: CHIKODI. (OWNER OF THE HERO HONDA SPLENDER NO.KA-23/V-7288) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1( A TO C); NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.06.2011 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI IN M.V.C. NO.367/2009 WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN M.F.A. NO.24183 OF 2011 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. RAMACHANDRA DASHARATH YADAV, SINCE DECEASED R/BY HIS L.R’S 1(A) SMT. MANGALA W/O. RAMACHANDRA YADAV, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 1(B) SMT. NARMADA MAHESH PATIL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, 1(C) SHRI. MURALIDHAR S/O. RAMACHANDRA YADAV, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O: SIDDAPURWADI, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591213. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 AND: 1. RAMACHANDRA SHIVAPPA CHINCHALE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: INGALI, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591242. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, I.C.I.C.I. BANK TOWER, BANDRA KURALA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST MUMBAI, THROUGH ITS MANAGER, ICICI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH: CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.367/2009, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, DATED 23.06.2011 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) MFA No.25644/2011 is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the involvement of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23-V-7288 as well as quantum of compensation, whereas MFA No.24183/2011 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23.06.2011, passed in MVC No.367/2009, on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Belgaum (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. It is the case of claimant that on 24.06.2008, he went to Siddapurwadi on his bicycle to invite agricultural farm laborers for his land. At about 8.30 p.m., while he was returning to his house on Chikodi Ankali road near his village, at that time, rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23-V-7288 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and dashed to claimant. Due to which, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 claimant sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘MV Act’). 3. In the present case, from the medical evidence on record it is proved that the claimant had suffered the following injuries. “1. “Y” shaped 7 cm x 4 cm (each limb) x 4cm depth. 2. Lacerated wound over the frontal region and frontal bone. 3. Frontal compound depressed fracture with cord contusions at C4-C5. 4. MRI of lumbar spine with whole spine screwning. 5. Mild diffuse disc bulge at L-3-4 Cord contusion at C4-C5.” 4. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,99,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that accident occurred on 24.06.2008, but complaint lodged on 15.07.2008. Hence, there is a delay of 20 days in lodging complaint. Further submitted that Ex.P15 is a case sheet of medical records, in which, claimant the admitted that history was given on him that he fell from bicycle and sustained injuries. But there is no mentioning in the said medical record that claimant was hit by motorcycle. Therefore, at very initial point of time, when there is no mentioning of motorcycle hit the bicycle of claimant, then it would be suspicious regarding involvement of motorcycle and this is not correctly appreciated by the Tribunal. Therefore, submitted that motorcycle is falsely implicated to the case just to make claim against the insurer of motorcycle. 6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the insurer places reliance on the following judgments: 1. New India Assurance Co. LTD., Vs. Velu & Another. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 2. MFA No.20422/2009 C/w MFA CROB.NO.817/2013 dated 01.06.2015. 3. MFA No.20768/2010 C/w MFA Nos.20970/2010 and 20971/2010 dated 08.6.2015. 4. North West Karnataka Rd. Transport Corporation Vs. Gourabai and Others – MANU/SC/1098/2009. 5. Mathew Alexander Vs. Mohammed Shafi and another – 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531.” 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that from police records, it is proved the involvement of motorcycle in the accident. Further submitted that, just because, delay in lodging the complaint cannot be made ground to reject the claim petition by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAVI VS. BADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS1. Further submitted that in the complaint (Ex.P1), it is explained as to what was the reason for delay in lodging complaint that the claimant was in an unconscious stage since at the time of accident, therefore, 1 AIR 2011 SCC 1226 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 claimant was in the hospital, which caused delay in lodging complaint. Further submitted that Ex.P15 is case sheet, in which, claimant admitted that history was given on him that he fallen from bicycle and sustained injuries. Just because, involvement of motorcycle is not stated in the case sheet of medical records, that does not neglect the fact of involvement of motorcycle, when from other evidence on record it is proved that involvement of motorcycle in the accident. Therefore, prays to leave the contention taken by the Insurance Company. Hence, prays for enhancement of compensation. 8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the Tribunal records. The points that arise for consideration of this appeal are as under: a) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the claimant proved that he had sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.06.2008 at about 8.30 p.m., while returning to his house on Chikodi Ankali road near his village and accident - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 caused by rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23-V-7288? b) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the Insurance Company proved that the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23-V-7288 was not involved in the accident? c) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? 9. In the present case, the alleged accident is caused on 24.06.2008 at 8.30 p.m., when the claimant was returning to his house on bicycle, it was hit by motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23-V-7288, due to which, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. Admittedly, the complaint is lodged on 15.07.2008 after 20 days of the accident before the Police. The delay in lodging complaint alone cannot be a factor to reject the claim petition. The delay in lodging complaint shall be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is a principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI VS. BADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 (supra) that the delay in lodging complaint alone is not a ground to reject the claim petition. If there is any cogent reasons assigned in the complaint explaining the delay caused in this regard, the same shall be considered in positive way. In the present case, Ex.P-1 is the complaint. Complainant is none other than son of the claimant/injured. The son-complainant has assigned reasons that soon after the accident, since injury was to the head, the claimant was unconscious in the hospital even at the time of lodging complaint before the Police. Hence, he could not go to the Police station and lodge complaint. It is paramount thing to be considered that in these types of cases, the first priority would be to attend the injured rather than to lodge promptly the complaint before the Police. The medical records prove that at the time of admitting the claimant to the hospital, he has lost consciousness even after 20 days, the claimant has not regained consciousness. Therefore, under these circumstances, there would not be prompt lodging of complaint before Police. Therefore, the reasons stated in - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 the complaint for delay in lodging complaint could be accepted. 10. Further, the appellant/insurance company is much stressing on the Ex.P-15 -summary sheet in which it is mentioned the history of the accident as the claimant/injured fell from the bicycle and there is no mentioning of the motorcycle number. Just because, there is no mentioning of motorcycle number in the case sheet at the time of admitting to the hospital, it is not a ground to make rejection of the claim. At the time of admitting the injured to the hospital, the hospital authorities will take brief information so as to put it on writing in a single sentence not in a lengthy narration. Therefore, the same is stated in the hospital records. Regarding mentioning of history of the accident, the hospital authorities is not a encyclopedia to state all the things. But it is proved from the medical evidence on record, particularly Ex.P15 that the claimant fell on the ground from the bicycle. This corroborates the version in the complaint. Then the other - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 thing would be considered regarding involvement of the motorcycle. 11. After lodging of complaint and registering the FIR, the investigation officer had started investigation and filed chargesheet. Chargesheet is at Ex.P-6 against the accused. The accused had appeared before the Magistrate and in criminal case, the accused has caused accident and has pleaded guilty of offence and accordingly paid fine. Therefore, all these evidence on record proved the involvement of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23- V-7288, that this motorcycle has caused the accident. Therefore, considering the entire evidence on record in this regard on all its preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that the accident is caused due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. In these types of cases, the evidence on record requires to be considered on the theory of preponderance of probabilities but not on the theory of beyond reasonable doubt. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated this principle of law in the judgment in the case of Mathew Alexandar V/s Mohammed Shafi and another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531. 13. Further, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in Gourabai’s case supra, the facts are that the deceased had suffered head injuries due to fall from the height of 8 to 10 feet of his own house as it is revealed from the medical evidence while admitting to the hospital. Therefore, in that facts and circumstances, it was held that the deceased had not died due to the motorcycle accident but the facts and circumstances are different in this case. Therefore, the above said judgment is not helpful to the appellant-insurance company. 14. Further, in the judgment in the case of Hanumanthappa Anandappa Patroti supra, the facts and circumstances and evidence are different from the present case. Therefore, the above said judgments are not - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 applicable in the present case so as to come to the aid of the insurance company. 15. Further, in the case of Velu and another (supra), it is held that the accident occurred due to skid and fall. Therefore, it was held that there is no involvement of the offending vehicle but in the present case, the claimant had fallen on the ground due to the hit by the motorcycle as it is revealed from the evidence on record as discussed above. Therefore, due to difference in factual matrix and evidence in the above cited case from the instant case, this judgment is not applicable in the present case. Therefore, it is proved from the evidence on record that involvement of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23-V-7288 which has caused accident to the claimant when the claimant was returning to the house on the bicycle and thus, he has suffered injuries in the accident. Therefore, finding given by the Tribunal in this regard is legal and justified as there is no perversity - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 found. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the ‘affirmative’ and point No.2 in the ‘negative’. 16. From the evidence of the Doctor-PW-2, it is proved that the claimant has suffered cardioplegia becoming all the two limbs functionless. The claimant has suffered frontal compound duplex fracture with cord contusions at C4 and C5 vertebra also there is a diffuse disc bulge at L3 and L4 cord contusions at C4 and C5. The Doctor-PW2 in his evidence has stated that the claimant has persistent weakness in both upper limbs and he was treated by physiotherapist. The conditions are continued till today. The claimant has suffered loss of rib with deformity. 17. Further it is evidence of Doctor that the claimant is not able to do any action with his fingers. Therefore, the Doctor has assessed permanent physical disability to the extent of 70% and accordingly issued disability certificate as per Ex.P-10. During course of cross-examination, nothing is revealed to say that the claimant has not - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 suffered cardioplegia. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained, the compensation of Rs.60,000/- is awarded under the head pain and suffering. The compensation awarded towards medical evidence at Rs.49,000/- is kept in-tact and Rs.38,250/-(4,250 x 9) towards loss of income during laid up period is awarded. The claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.40,000/- towards incidental expenses like food, nourishment, traveling, attendant charges, etc.,. 18. The Doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered cardioplegia and his both upper limbs have become functionless and he cannot perform any act from his hands. Therefore, 50% is taken as a functional disability. 19. The accident is caused in the year 2008. Therefore, notional income of Rs.4,250/- per month is taken into consideration, which is recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. The claimant was - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 aged 62 years at the time of accident. Therefore, appropriate applicable multiplier is ‘7’. Hence, loss of future income due to disability is reassessed as under: Rs.4,250 x 12 x 7 x 50% = Rs.1,78,500/- 20. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards injuries, pain and suffering. 60,000 2. Towards medical expenses. 49,000 3. Towards loss of amenities. 50,000 4. Towards loss of income during laid up period 38,250 5. Towards incidental charges like attendant charges, food, nourishment, conveyance, etc. 40,000 6. Towards loss of future earning capacity. 1,78,500 Total: 4,15,750/- 21. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,15,750/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.1,99,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 the enhanced compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 22. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. MFA No.25644/2011 filed by the Insurance company is dismissed. ii. MFA No.24183/2011 filed by the claimants are allowed in part. iii. The judgment and award dated 23.06.2011, passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belgaum in MVC No.367/2009 stands modified. iv. The claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,15,750/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2499 MFA No. 25644 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 24183 of 2011 v. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. vi. The insurance company shall deposit the enhanced amount with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. vii. The amount in deposit by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. viii. Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment. ix. No order as to costs. x. Draw award accordingly. PMP- para 1 to 8 RKM- para 8 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76 Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE