- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6733 MFA No. 102564 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 22588 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA M.F.A. NO. 102564 OF 2014 (MV-I) C/W. M.F.A. NO. 22588 OF 2013 (MV-I) IN MFA NO. 102564 OF 2014 BETWEEN: SUKANT S/O. HANAMANT BANGI, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: ALAGUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRIDHAR C. BANGI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: ALAGUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BALGALKOT. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MELLIGEIR COMPLEX, OPP COURT, KALADAGI RAOD, BALALKOT. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AND BY MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.02.2013 PASSED BY IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT NO.VI AT JAMKHANDI, IN MVC NO.501/2009 AND ETC. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6733 MFA No. 102564 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 22588 of 2013 IN M.F.A. NO. 22588 OF 2013 BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, MELLIGERI COMPLEX, OPP: COURT KALADAGI ROAD, BAGALKOT, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580023, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. R. R. MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUKANT S/O. HANAMANT BANGI, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALAGUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. SHRIDHAR C. BANGI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALAGUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA S. SAJJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.02.2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT NO.VI, JAMKHANDI, IN MVC NO.501/2009 AND ETC. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6733 MFA No. 102564 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 22588 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) These appeals are filed by the insurer as well as the claimant against the judgment and award dated 07.02.2013 in M.V.C. No. 501/2009 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT NO. VI, Jamkhandi (for short, the ‘Tribunal’). M.F.A. No. 102564/2014 is preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation and insurer has preferred M.F.A. No. 22588/2013 challenging its liability to pay compensation. Both appeals arise out of the same judgment, therefore they are taken up together for disposal. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 2. The case of the claimant that on 04.09.2008 around 11.30 p.m. claimant was standing near Dharidevar temple at Algur on Jamkhandi-Bijapur road. At that time rider of the motorcycle bearing No. KA-48-H-4120 came from back side and dashed against the claimant and caused grievous - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6733 MFA No. 102564 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 22588 of 2013 injuries. He was admitted at City Hospital, Jamakhandi wherein he had taken initial treatment and thereafter he was shifted to K.L.E. Hospital, Belagavi. He was admitted as inpatient for around 47 days; he underwent surgeries and spent lot of amount towards medical expenses. He has been suffering from permanent disability, affected earning capacity. With these reasons prayed to award compensation of Rs.11,50,000/-. 3. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to respondent No.2, the alleged motorcycle bearing No. KA- 48-H-4120 was falsely implicated in this case to claim compensation. The accident had taken place by an unknown heavy vehicle. The claimant was under the influence of alcohol. Due to his negligence he sustained injuries by an unknown vehicle. Therefore respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. With these reasons prayed to dismiss claim petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6733 MFA No. 102564 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 22588 of 2013 4. On considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed necessary issues. Claimant to prove his case, examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked 314 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.314. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW1 and marked three documents at Exs.R.1 to R3. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the material available on record, Tribunal vide impugned judgment. held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider and in the said accident the claimant sustained fracture. Income of the claimant was taken as Rs.4,500/- per month, assessed disability at 10% to the whole body, applied multiplier ‘14’. With these figures and other materials the Tribunal awarded compensation on different heads as under: 1. Transportation charges 3,000.00 2. Food, attendant & nourishment 10,000.00 3. Medical expenses 1,68,059.00 4. Laid up period 9,000.00 5. Future earnings 75,600.00 6. Pain and suffering 25,000.00 7. Discomforts and loss of amenities 5,000.00 8. Loss of life expectation 5,000.00 Total 3,00,659.00 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6733 MFA No. 102564 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 22588 of 2013 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the insurer-appellant is that said vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. Ex.R.2 indicates that accident had taken place by a heavy vehicle. Respondent No.1 is none other than the nephew of the claimant. After discussion and deliberation, a false complaint was given involving the offending motorcycle with the collision of the owner as well as the Police and other concerned officials. PW1 in his cross examination admitted this fact of giving statement to the Doctor. Therefore he has not disputed Ex.R.2. These facts were not considered by the Tribunal and hence prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant contends that FIR was registered within a short time after the accident. Ex.P.4 do not disclose that any such statement was given by the claimant to the Doctor that accident had taken place by involvement of the heavy vehicle. Injured was shifted to KLE Hospital on the next day of the accident. In - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6733 MFA No. 102564 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 22588 of 2013 Ex.R.2 it is stated that accident had taken place due to involvement of the heavy vehicle. The author of Ex.R.2 was not examined. Therefore it was not proved. The insurer has not challenged charge sheet or negligence before the competent authority to show that false case has been registered against the rider of the vehicle. The investigating Officer chargesheeted the rider of the motorcycle, which prima facie shows that said vehicle was involved in the accident. He further submits that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and hence prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 7. The following questions arise for determination of this Court. (i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that accident had taken place due to involvement of motorcycle bearing No. KA-48-H-4120? (ii) Whether the amount of compensation is just and reasonable? - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6733 MFA No. 102564 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 22588 of 2013 8. Point No.1: In the claim petition as well as in the evidence it is stated that accident had taken place on 04.09.2008 around 11.30 p.m. on Jamakhandi-Bijapur road, due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing No. KA-48-H-4120. The endorsement in Ex.P.1 shows that it was recorded on 05.9.2008 around 3.15 a.m. at Parthanahalli City Hospital, Jamakhandi and FIR was registered at 4.30 a.m. 9. The certificate given by the Doctor at Parthanahalli is at Ex.P.4. It shows that claimant was admitted in the said hospital on 05.09.2008 at 00.50 hours. In the said certificate it is noted that “patient is in the state of alcohol intoxication”. It is also mentioned regarding the injuries sustained by him. The said certificate does not disclose that accident was caused by heavy vehicle. Ex.P.5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report. It shows minor damage to the motorcycle bearing No. KA-48-H-4120. Chargesheet was also filed against the rider of the said motorcycle for causing the accident in question. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6733 MFA No. 102564 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 22588 of 2013 10. Respondent No.2 examined RW1 wherein evidence given by PW1 was totally denied. Ex.R.2 is produced by the insurer and it is given by the KLE Hospital, Belagavi. According to the said certificate, on 05.09.2008 claimant came to the said hospital at 7.25 p.m. and it appears to be revealed before the Doctor that claimant sustained injury in a ‘hit and run’ case by a heavy vehicle. It also disclose about the injuries sustained by the claimant. The insurer mainly relies on Ex.R.2 and on that basis it contends that motorcycle involved in the accident is falsely implicated just to claim compensation. 11. Initial treatment was taken at Parthnalli Hospital wherein history of accident was not told as hit by unknown heavy vehicle. In Ex.P.1 it is stated as injury by RTA by involvement of motorcycle. If contents of Ex.P.1 is after thought, then why injured would say in KLE Hospital wherein he was admitted after giving statement as per Ex.P.1, that he met with an accident by involvement of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6733 MFA No. 102564 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 22588 of 2013 heavy vehicle. Such chances are remote. It is not clear as to who gave such information to doctor in KLE Hospital. 12. The copy of the MLC register is not produced by both the parties, which would throw some light on the contentions of the parties. Therefore only on the basis of contents of Ex.R.2 it is difficult to believe that accident occurred due to involvement of the heavy vehicle. The accident had taken place in the midnight around 11:30 p.m. Statement of complainant was recorded within four hours from the time of the accident. Claimant had sustained grievous injuries. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to believe that within a short time they deliberated and filed a false case stating involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Claimant did not anticipate the accident. Under such circumstances, within a short period of four hours he created these facts and arranged to involve the motorcycle bearing No. KA-48-H-4120 is difficult to accept. At the cost of repetition if he had decided and gave vehicle - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6733 MFA No. 102564 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 22588 of 2013 number of respondent No.1, then again why he would tell in KLE hospital that he sustained injuries in an accident by hit and run by heavy vehicle? It is not believable. 13. It is true that Tribunal has not discussed this point in detail. Since it is the trial Court, it shall consider contentions of both the parties and also Exs.P.4 and R.2. But there is no discussion about the said documents. The materials placed on record by the claimant prima facie prove that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. 14. For the above said reason question no.1 framed above is answered in the affirmative. 15. Question No.2: The claimant sustained fracture of tibia and fibula. He was admitted as inpatient in KLE Hospital from 05.09.2008 to 10.10.2008, underwent surgeries, he examined PW2 to assess disability. Considering the said fact the Tribunal assessed disability at 10% to the whole body. Considering the nature of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6733 MFA No. 102564 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 22588 of 2013 injury and treatment taken as inpatient for 47 days, it appears the amount awarded on other heads except medical expenses, loss of future earning capacity are on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced. 16. For the aforesaid discussion, the following amount of compensation is re-calculated and awarded: 1. Pain and suffering 40,000.00 2. Special diet, attendant charges and conveyance 25,000.00 3. Medical expenses 1,68,059.00 4. Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.4,500/- x 6) 27,000.00 5. Future earnings 75,600.00 6. Loss of amenities and life expectation 20,000.00 7. Total 3,55,659.00 Award of Tribunal 3,00,659.00 Enhancement 55,000.00 The claimant is also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation. 17. It is not in dispute that respondent no.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer. Both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6733 MFA No. 102564 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 22588 of 2013 18. For the aforesaid reasons question No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative and I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) M.F.A. No. 22588/2013 filed by the insurer is dismissed. (ii) M.F.A. No. 102564/2014 filed by the claimant is allowed in part. (iii) Judgment and award dated 07.02.2013 in M.V.C. No. 501/2009 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT NO. VI, Jamkhandi is modified. (iv) Claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.55,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till its realization excluding delayed period of 509 days in filing appeal. (v) Respondent No.2-insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest within six weeks from the date of award. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6733 MFA No. 102564 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 22588 of 2013 (vi) Upon deposit, the entire enhanced compensation amount shall be released in favour of the claimant. Whatever amount deposited by the insurer shall be transmitted to the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bvv /ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52