- 1 - MFA No. 3869 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3869 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR JP & DEVI JAMBUKESWAR ARCADE NO.69, MILLERS ROAD BANGALORE-560 052 BY ZONAL CLAIMS MANAGER MR ALOK KUMAR GUPTHA …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR D S S/O D.K. SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O MADIKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK-563125 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT PRESENTLY AT C/O S.N. MUKUNDA NO.209, 1ST CROSS, 4TH MAIN, MUNISWAMAPPA GARDEN KARIYANAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 084. 2. SRI SRINIVASAPPA S/O ERAPPA MAJOR IN AGE - 2 - MFA No. 3869 of 2017 R/O BOORAGAMAKALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK- 563 125 CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101. 3. SRI K. BYRAREDDY S/O SADAM KRISHNAPPA MAJOR IN AGE R/O OOLAVADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK-563125 CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S.BYRE REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 29.11.2019, NOTICE TO R3 IS H/S) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.2124/2012 DATED 14.02.2017, ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SCCH NO.13, AT BANGALORE AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN MVC NO.2124/2012 DATED 14.02.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT BANGALORE AND ETC. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 04.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - MFA No. 3869 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as ‘the MV Act’ for short) to set aside the judgment and award dated 14.02.2017 in MVC No.2124/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, SCCH No.13, Bangalore (herein after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) and allow the claim petition filed by the claimants. 2. The appellant herein is the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 herein is the claimant before the Tribunal and respondents No.2 and 3 herein are the respondents No.1 and 3 before the Tribunal. 3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein as referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal. 4. The claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act was filed by the petitioner/claimant claiming the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident. - 4 - MFA No. 3869 of 2017 The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that:- 5. On 05.02.2011 at about 9:00 p.m. the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider on a Hero Honda Passion Pro bearing Reg. No. KA 02 H 3971(offending vehicle) ridden by his friend Venkateshappa from Chintamani to Madikere village, when a Splendor Plus bearing Reg. No. KA 40 L 7094 (insured vehicle) coming from the opposite direction, driven rashly and negligently, dashed with the offending vehicle. 6. The claimant suffered injuries and initially treated at the Government Hospital, Chintamani and later at Deepak Hospital and spent over Rs.1,00,000/- on treatment. The Chintamani Rural Police registered a case in C.C.No.85/11 under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC against the rider of the insured vehicle. The claimant, an agriculturist and dairy farmer was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, claimed he could not continue his regular work - 5 - MFA No. 3869 of 2017 after the accident and sought compensation with 12% annual interest and costs. 7. Upon service of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed ex-parte. The respondents No.2 and 3 appeared through counsel, and only respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting that it had issued an insurance policy for the insured vehicle valid from 28.03.2010 to 27.03.2011, contending that its liability was limited to policy terms and conditions. 8. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company denied that the insured vehicle was involved in the accident, alleging that the claimant himself was riding rashly without a valid licence, insurance, or vehicle documents, and fell on his own. The claimant’s age, income and medical expenses was also disputed by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company, asserting that the compensation claimed was exorbitant. - 6 - MFA No. 3869 of 2017 9. In order to substantiate his claim, the claimant got examined himself and four witnesses as PWs.1 to PW5 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.24. On the other hand the respondent No.2-Insurance Company, has examined its manager as RW.1. 10. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.3,98,380/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant herein-Insurance company that the alleged accident took place due to self-fall on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle but not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the insured vehicle. Further, it was contended that the insured vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. Hence, filed the present suit challenging the quantum and liability fastened against the Insurance Company. - 7 - MFA No. 3869 of 2017 12. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 herein/claimant that the PW.3 – Doctor who treated the claimant suffered fracture of both bones of left leg and stated that he was suffering from 15% disability. No evidence was given by the Insurance company that the injury was sustained due to the self fall of the driver of the offending vehicle. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693, to show that the delay in lodging the FIR was not a ground to dismiss the claim petition. 14. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and perused the material on record along with Judgment passed by the Tribunal. - 8 - MFA No. 3869 of 2017 15. It is observed by this Court that the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties and by marking relevant documents, has come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,98,380/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit in the Court and partly allowed the claim petition. There are no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned Judgment of the Tribunal. 16. Accordingly, the following order is passed: i) Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. ii) The Judgment and Award dated 14.02.2017 in MVC No.2124/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, SCCH No.13, Bangalore, is hereby affirmed. iii) Registry is directed to send back the TCR to the Tribunal, forthwith. - 9 - MFA No. 3869 of 2017 iv) Amount in deposit with accrued interest if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV