- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6365 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER H.D.F.C. ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD BANGAORE-560 001 REP. BY. ASST. MANAGER - LEGAL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SATHISHA S/O LATE APPAJI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT GEJJALAGERE MADDUR TLAUK MANDYA DIST-571 428. 2. SRI MUHAMMED E.V. S/O KADERKUTYY HAJI MAJOR, SHAFANS MANZAL, 8TH MILE, MAYYIL POST, TALIPARAMBA, KERALA STATE, KANNUR DIST-670 602. (OWNER OF THE MARUTHI SUZUKI CAR BEARING REG NO.KL-59-C-1280) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.D.T. CHETHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI.C.M. ASHWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.2.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1414/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MADDUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,28,400/- WITH INTEREST @ 7% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company (Respondent No.2) challenging the judgment and award dated 11th February 2016, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT., Maddur, (for short `Tribunal), in MVC.No.1414/2014. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case of both the parties before the Tribunal were that, On 07.05.2014, at about 7.00 p.m. the claimant was standing on the footpath of Bengaluru-Mysuru road at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 Gejjalagere, Mandya District. At that time, the driver of the Maruti Suzuki car bearing registration No.KL-59-C- 1280, drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained fractures. He took treatment as an inpatient in MIMS Hospital, Mandya, for a period of 15 days. He has spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses. He was aged about 30 years and was an agriculturist, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.6,80,000/-. 4. The Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. Respondent No.2 denied the contentions of the claimant. It denied the involvement of the vehicle and also impersonation of the driver since the person who was driving the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 drive the said class of vehicle. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation for committing breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. The claimant to prove his case examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 14 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-14. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked documents as Exs.R-1 to R-6. 8. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant as 30 years, his income as Rs.6,000/- per month, applied the multiplier of `17', assessed the disability at 10% to the whole body and in all awarded total compensation of Rs.2,28,400/- by the impugned judgment. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 9. I have heard the arguments. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that there is an inordinate delay of 12 days in filing the complaint. The alleged accident was said to have taken place on 07.05.2014 and complaint was registered on 18.05.2014 and in the complaint, the name of the driver was mentioned as `Mohammad', but in the charge sheet, the name of the driver was mentioned as `Sakaria', which clearly indicates that the said Mohammad did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the name of another driver has been mentioned in the charge sheet without any basis. 11. He further contended that respondent No.2 issued notice to respondent No.1 calling upon him to produce the driving licence. However, he failed to do so, which indicates that Sakaria also did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. All these facts clearly indicate that said vehicle was falsely implicated by the claimant just to claim compensation from the insurer. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 12. He further contended that the Tribunal has awarded more amount of compensation under all the heads. According to the medical records, claimant sustained fracture of fibula, which is a minor bone and it will not lead to permanent disability of 10% to the whole body. Therefore, amount of compensation awarded under the head `loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability' is also excessive. He further contended that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is 7%, which is on the higher side. Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the offending vehicle, submitted that, owner of the vehicle has furnished the documents after issuance of notice by the insurer. The Investigating Officer has not charge sheeted the driver of the vehicle for not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the respondent No.2-insurer has not led any effective evidence to prove that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 effective driving licence, except producing the copy of the notice. Therefore, respondent No.2 utterly failed to prove the said fact. He further contended that since the policy of insurance was valid, therefore, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation. 14. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, however, claimant has not filed any appeal. The delay in filing the complaint is properly explained and mere delay is not a ground for denying to award compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 15. From the above discussions, following points arise for my determination : (i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that offending vehicle was involved in the accident and it was driven by Sakaria at the time of the accident? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 (ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in directing the insurer to pay compensation despite the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid and effective driving licence? (ii) What order? Point No.1 : 16. PW-1 is the claimant. In his evidence, he has reiterated the petition averments. In his cross- examination, he has explained the delay in lodging the complaint. In his cross-examination, it was not suggested that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case. On the contrary, it was suggested that when the said vehicle was coming slowly, he suddenly tried to cross the road and in the said process, the accident occured. He also denied the suggestion that due to his negligence, the accident occurred. Therefore, during the course of the trial, the insurer has not denied the fact of the accident as stated in the claim petition. 17. In his evidence, the claimant has stated that, immediately after the accident, he lost consciousness and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 that he regained his consciousness at the hospital. According to his cross-examination, he was admitted as an inpatient in the hospital for 6 days. Ex.P-7 shows that he was taken to hospital on 07.05.2014 and he had sustained certain injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to River View hospital, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient on 08.05.2014 and discharged on 10.05.2014. He had sustained 1/3rd fracture of left fibula and also sustained head injury. His contention that he was admitted in the hospital for six days is not supported by any material evidence. 18. From the above said materials, claimant proved that he had sustained fracture of left fibula. It appears, he underwent conservative treatment. He has produced few medical bills, which have been noted by the Tribunal. 19. According to the evidence of PW-2 - doctor, claimant suffered from permanent disability to an extent of 30% to the right lower limb. The Tribunal has taken 1/3rd - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 of the same and considered the disability suffered by the claimant to the whole body at 10%. 20. Claimant is said to be an agriculturist. He has not produced any records to prove that he was owning agricultural lands. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month. Considering the above said facts and circumstances, the Tribunal calculated the compensation. Though the learned counsel for the appellant seriously disputes regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said findings. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. Point No.2 : 21. The main ground of attack is that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident. As already stated above, for the first time in the evidence of RW-1, the said point was raised. In the cross-examination of PW-1, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 even no such suggestions were made. Undisputedly, claimant was a pedestrian and he was not traveling as a passenger in the car. According to Ex.P-1, the driver told him that his name was Mohammad and before the claimant was taken to hospital, he left the spot. Therefore, except knowing the mobile number and name as stated by him, there was no opportunity to the complainant to ascertain the correct name of the driver. Ex.P-3 i.e., the charge sheet shows that the concerned Investigating Officer enquired with the owner of the vehicle i.e., CW-6 - Mohammad Yadapparvala, who has given the name and address of driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the charge sheet was laid against the said Sakaria. Only on that basis, it cannot be presumed that said Mohammad was driving the vehicle and he had no driving licence and therefore, he planted another driver by name Sakaria. The said contention is not tenable. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on Ex.P-13, wherein there is a reference that claimant - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 sustained injury in a "self-fall". The said contention is also not tenable. Consistently, the medical records show that the claimant was hit by a car while standing or walking at the side of the road. Therefore, the reference to "a fall" cannot be a valid ground to disbelieve the claimant's case. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the said Sakara did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. It is true that he has not produced the driving licence even before this Court though the appeal is pending from the year 2016. 24. To rebut the evidence of the claimant, the officer of respondent No.2-Insurance Company was examined as RW-1. In his cross-examination by the claimant, he has stated that during investigation done by the insurance company, he came to know that owner of the said vehicle was one Mohammad and he was driving the car at the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 time of the accident. He also admitted that "owner of the vehicle appeared before the insurance company and produced the copy of the Registration Certificate, FIR, driving licence and at that time, driving licence of Sakaria was also produced". He was a Law Officer of the respondent No.2-Insurance Company. It appears that Respondent No. 2 was aware that the driver of the vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence. Despite having received the necessary documents from the owner of the vehicle, the insurer has been contending before this Court that the driver did not hold a valid and effective licence. Therefore, the contention of the appellant-insurer that the driver of the said vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle, is not tenable. 25. Further, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The Tribunal in its discretion has awarded the interest at the rate of 7% p.a. on the amount - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 of compensation. It is not exorbitant. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the said finding. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the negative. 26. The insurer in order to shirk its responsibility, has raised all possible and even untenable objections. The insurance company employed a microscope scrutiny of the records to trace even the slightest error in the documents pertaining to the criminal case registered in connection with the accident. 27. Owner of vehicles pay the premiums to purchase policy since it is not only compulsory, but also with an intention that victim of the accident shall get compensation. The said purpose is defeated by such attitudes of the insurance company. The appeal if devoid of merits. 28. For the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following: - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24735 MFA No. 6365 of 2016 ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 11th February 2016, passed in MVC.No.1414/2014, by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Maddur, stands confirmed. iii) Whatever amount deposited by the insurer shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13