- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8132 MFA No. 100267 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100267 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SHANBAG CHAMBERS, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI KALAGOUDA S/O. NEMANNA @ NEMINATH PATIL, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI MALLAPPA S/O. BALAPPA SHIRUR, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. MUGULKHOD, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI, (OWNER OF THE TRUCK BEARING NO. KA-23/A-1090). … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1332/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT CHIKODI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8132 MFA No. 100267 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is field by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 10.10.2018 passed in MVC No.1332/2013 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi sitting at Chikodi1 questioning the liability fastened on it to pay compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that truck bearing Reg.No.KA-23/ A-1090 is falsely implicated to the case. From the medical evidence on record, it is proved that the claimant was admitted to the hospital with a history of fallen from the bike and hence there is no mention of the truck dashing in 1 (herein after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8132 MFA No. 100267 of 2019 the medical records. Therefore, it is to be construed as self fall from the bike without being hit by the truck. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 4. The accident occurred on 04.06.2013. The complaint, as per Ex.P-2, was lodged on 07.06.2013, just after 3 days from the date of accident. Though there is delay of 3 days in lodging the complaint before the Police, the delay alone cannot be made ground to dismiss the claim petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAVI VS. BADRI NARAYAN AND OTHERS2 has held that delay in lodging the complaint before the Police could be considered according to the facts and circumstances involved in each case. But in the present case, the medical records disclose that the claimant was admitted to the hospital with a history of self fall from bike. “Fallen from the bike” has two connotations: one is that self fall from the bike and another one is that if the motorcycle is hit by 2 (2011) 4 SCC 693 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8132 MFA No. 100267 of 2019 any other vehicle that is to be construed as fallen from the bike. 5. The history mentioned in the medical records is not encyclopedia, but the medical records prove the fact that the claimant was admitted to the hospital with history of road traffic accident as a result of falling from the bike. When in the complaint, it is stated that the truck hit to the motorcycle and in Ex.P-3-charge sheet also it is proved that the driver of the truck is made an accused as he was rash and negligent in driving the truck. Therefore, on all its preponderance of probabilities having cumulative facts as above stated prove the fact that the claimant had sustained injuries as his motorcycle was hit by truck. Therefore, there is no merit found in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 6. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded rate of interest at 9% p.a., but this Court while awarding compensation has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8132 MFA No. 100267 of 2019 consistently held the rate of interest at 6% p.a. Hence, the rate of interest is scaled down to 6% p.a. To this extent, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. 7. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment and award dated 10.10.2018 passed in MVC No.1332/2013 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi sitting at Chikodi, stands modified only to the extent that the claimant is entitled compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. iii. Amount in deposit made by the appellant/Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. iv. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA, CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 51