- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27558 MFA No. 2084 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2084 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. SIDDAPPA H.S, S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT, HEGGADAHALLI VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET - TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR-DIST. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.V. BHANU PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BABU SURESH D S/O DHONDAI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.133/17/2 OLD MIDDLE SCHOOL ROAD, MARATHAHALLI BANGALORE -560 037. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, SUNDARAM TOWER 46, WHITES ROAD ROYAPETTAH CHENNAI -14. 3. SRI. RAJAPPA S/O H.B. SHIVANNA AGED MAJOR, Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27558 MFA No. 2084 of 2015 R/AT NO.57, 10TH CROSS KUVEMPUNAGARA MYSORE - 570 023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. JAGADEESH PRASAD.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1323/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 5th July 2014, passed by the V Addl.District Judge and M.A.C.T., Mysuru, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.1323/2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27558 MFA No. 2084 of 2015 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 25.06.2011, at about 5.00 p.m., claimant was traveling in an goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-10-2010 from Guldlupet to his native place Heggadahalli. Near Rajarajeshwari Petrol Bunk, on B.N.Road, Gundlupet town, the said autorickshaw met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KA-03-ML-4227 by its driver. As a result, claimant sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment as an inpatient in J.S.S.Hospital, Mysuru and has spent more than Rs.2 lakhs towards medical expenses. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed for awarding of compensation of Rs.12 lakhs. 4. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the car bearing registration No.KA-03-ML-4227 and respondent No.3 is the owner of the goods auto bearing registration No.KA-10-2010. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27558 MFA No. 2084 of 2015 All the respondents have appeared before the Tribunal and have filed their respective written statement denying the contentions of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 denied that the accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the car. Respondent No.1 contended that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and in the event, the compensation is awarded, then respondent No.2 be directed to pay the same. 6. Respondent No.2-insurer in its written statement contended that the owner of the vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the police of insurance. Therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. Respondent No.3 - owner of the goods autorickshaw, denied the contentions of the claim petitioner and denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw and contended that he was not at all responsible for causing of the accident, and as such, he is not liable to pay the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27558 MFA No. 2084 of 2015 compensation. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 9. The claimant to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and marked 13 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-13. Respondents examined three witnesses as RW-1 to RW-3 and marked Exs.R-1 to R-4. 10. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the goods auto. The Tribunal assessed the compensation as Rs.1,02,500/- under the following heads: Particulars Amount in Rs. Injuries, pain and suffering 30,000/- Medical expenses 53,000/- Loss of earning during the period of treatment 4,500/- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27558 MFA No. 2084 of 2015 Loss of amenities, conveyance and nourishment 5,000/- Loss of future amenities and unhappiness 10,000/- Total 1,02,000/- The Tribunal directed respondent No.3 i.e., the owner of the goods autorickshaw, to pay the compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. The same is challenged by the claimant in the present appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for both parties. The respondent No.3 - owner of the goods auto, who was directed to pay the compensation, has not challenged the impugned judgment and award. 12. The claimant has produced the charge sheet and its enclosures at Exs.P-1 to P-6, which revealed that driver of the goods auto was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 184 of Motor - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27558 MFA No. 2084 of 2015 Vehicles Act. Looking at Exs.P-3 and P-4 i.e., spot mahazar and sketch, it appears that the goods auto went to the wrong side of the road and caused the accident. It was stated in Ex.P-1 and suggested to PW-1 and RW-3 that driver of the goods vehicle suddenly tried to turn the vehicle without any signal, which resulted in the accident. 13. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is evident that driver of the goods auto was negligent in driving his vehicle. On perusal of the charge sheet and its enclosures, no where it was found that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. If that would have been the case, then the claimant would be entitled to claim compensation from either of the joint tortfeasors. But, that was not found in the present case. The Tribunal considering the same, directed the respondent No.3 to pay the compensation. The said finding is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27558 MFA No. 2084 of 2015 14. Learned counsel for the insurer tried to contend that claimant, as well as driver of the autorickshaw were under the influence of alcohol. The medical records shows that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol, but, there was no evidence to show that driver of the autorickshaw was under the influence of alcohol and even he was not charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the said fact cannot be presumed. 15. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that the owner of the car and the Investigating Officer were close friends. Therefore, in order to protect the interests of the car owner, the driver of the autorickshaw was falsely charge-sheeted. However, merely because the police officer was a friend of the complainant does not, by itself, give rise to a presumption of collusion. It cannot be assumed that, to protect the interest of the owner of the car, the driver of another vehicle was wrongfully charge- sheeted. Even if such an allegation were to be accepted, it - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27558 MFA No. 2084 of 2015 is not a matter that can be considered in summary trial proceedings. The owner or driver of the goods vehicle could have challenged the charge sheet before the appropriate forum on that ground, but no such challenge was made. In fact, the driver has not disputed his liability to pay the compensation awarded in the present petition. Furthermore, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimant and directed respondent No.3 to pay the same. For the claimant, it is immaterial who pays the compensation; what matters is that they receive it. The Tribunal on the basis of available materials on record, has rightly awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation. It does not call for any interference by this Court. 16. On re-appreciation of the materials on record, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of the Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, I proceed to pass the following : - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27558 MFA No. 2084 of 2015 ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 5th July 2014, passed by the V Addl.District Judge and MACT, Mysuru, in MVC No.1323/2012, stands confirmed. 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.: 23