- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4956 OF 2015 (MV- I) BETWEEN: 1. THIMMEGOWDA S/O THIMMARAYEEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O EECHALAHALLI VILLLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KANTARAJU B.R S/O RAMAIAH, MAJOR LOHIYA ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, 1ST CROSS, HASSAN-573201. 2. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. MANJUNATHA COMPLEX, OLD BUS STAND ROAD, HASSAN-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.H R RENUKA FOR R2 .,ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.738/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.20 15:23:09 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant/claim petitioner has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 25.3.2015 passed in MVC No.738/2014 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Hassan (for short `Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal is that on 5.1.2014 at about 8.15 p.m. the petitioner, after finishing his work, was proceeding on B M Road by walk towards Eechalahalli on the left side of the road and when he came near Kandali Grama Panchayathi Office, a motorbike bearing Registration No.KA- 13/V-9661 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed, dashed against the petitioner from his backside, as a result, the petitioner fell and has sustained injuries on left shoulder, right leg and right arm. Immediately, the injured was brought to Hassan Government Hospital - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 through an ambulance, wherein the duty doctor has taken x- ray and found left shoulder, right ankle and left femurs bones fractured and has conducted surgery for the above said injuries and rod was inserted. He has spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses; and due to the said injuries, he could not do work for a period of six months, hence, he sustained loss of income to an extent of Rs.40,000/-. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident, was doing agricultural coolie work and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. After the accident, due to the accidental injuries and disability, he is not able to do any work as before, he is suffering from pain, mental agony, loss of income and permanent disability. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorbike, which was insured with respondent No.2. On all these grounds sought for allowing the claim petition. 5. The respondent No.1 appeared before the Tribunal and filed statement of objections contending that petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is further admitted that the respondent No.1 has insured the vehicle with - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 respondent No.2 and policy was in force as on the date of accident. The respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The respondent No.1 has denied all other averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The respondent No.2 filed written statement contending that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The respondent No.1 has handed over the possession of the motorbike to the person who had no licence to drive the vehicle. The respondent No.2 admits the policy issued to the offending vehicle is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further the respondent No.2 has denied all other averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues. To prove the case of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8, and on closure of the petitioner's evidence, Sri Ganapathi S, Senior Assistant was examined as RW1 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 8. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments on both sides, has dismissed the claim petition with cost. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is illegal, perverse and unsustainable in law and the same requires to be interfered by this Court. The Tribunal has failed to take cognizance of serious disability which the petitioner sustained and also the pecuniary loss and the loss of income due to the injuries, so also, amount spent towards medical expenses and also loss of amenities in life. It is further submitted that the owner of the offending motorbike or Insurance Company has not taken any legal steps to challenge the charge sheet submitted by the concerned police. The Tribunal has ignored the evidence placed by the petitioner. Hence, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that in the MLC Register it is mentioned that the word car has been struck out and it is overwritten as motorbike, which is only a clerical mistake. The Tribunal has rejected the claim petition on another ground that the claim petitioner has stated that while he was taken to the hospital, he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 was unconscious and he was not aware as to how the accident happened. According to the petitioner, one Kumara was accompanied the injured to the Hospital, whereas Ex.R2 reveals that one Gangadhara took him to the hospital and the signature of the Gangadhara finds a place in Ex.R2, and it was written in the bracket that the said Gangadhara is a friend of the injured. The petitioner is not responsible for the said inconsistent writing. The petitioner has produced the wound certificate, x- rays and other documents to establish his claim. On all these grounds, sought for allowing this appeal. 10. As against this, Smt. H.R. Renuka, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and on all these grounds, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. On perusal of the materials placed before me, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition? ii) Whether the petitioner has made out ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal? iii) Whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation? iv) What order? Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2: 12. It is the case of the appellant that on 5.1.2014 at about 8.15 p.m., after finishing his work, when the petitioner was proceeding by walk towards Eechalahalli village on B M Road, a motor bike bearing Regn. No.KA-13/V-9661 driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the petitioner from his backside, as a result, he fell down and has sustained injuries. 13. To substantiate the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner - Thimmegowda examined as PW1 and the doctor as PW2. The petitioner reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 14. PW.2 - Dr. Sreeranga, who is a treated doctor, has deposed as to the injuries caused to the appellant. 15. Apart from the oral evidence, the appellant has produced a copy of the First Information Report, complaint, spot mahazar, wound certificate, IMV report, discharge summary sheet issued by Sri. Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan, case sheet, x-ray, etc. A perusal of all these material, makes it crystal clear that on the basis of the complaint filed by Kumar, S/o. Javaregowda, the Hassan Traffic Police has registered the case in Crime No.5/2014 against the rider of the motorbike bearing registration No.KA-13/V-9661 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, and submitted First Information Report to the Court. Thereafter, the police went to the spot and in presence of panchas prepared rough sketch, obtained MV report, wound certificate and recorded the statement of witnesses and submitted the charge sheet against the accused Mohan Kumar i.e., the rider of the motorbike for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 16. The respondents have not disputed the charge sheet submitted by the investigating officer against the rider of the offending vehicle. Even RW1 in his evidence, has not whispered anything regarding charge sheet submitted by the investigating officer. However, he has deposed that soon after the accident, the injured was shifted to Government Hospital, Hassan and was admitted as inpatient. The doctor has recorded the alleged history of road accident on 05.01.2014 around 8.15 p.m. as 'pedestrian vs. car'. Thereafter, the word 'Car' was struck out and the word 'bike' bearing No.KA-13/V-9661 is inserted. After two days from the date of accident, the claimant has colluded with the owner of the vehicle to get compensation and respondent No.2 has not pleaded anything in the written statement in this regard. 17. A perusal of Ex.R2 makes it is clear that respondent has produced Ex.R2 wherein it is stated that “occurrence of road traffic accident is around 8.15 p.m. near Kandali Milk Dairy, Sakaleshpura Road, 'pedestrian vs. car'”. Thereafter, the word 'car' was struck out 'bike bearing No.KA13-V-9661’ was inserted. At the time of evidence of PW.2, Ex.P10 was marked. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 18. Perusal of all these material, makes it crystal clear that, though the injured was admitted to the hospital with a history of road traffic accident by a motorcycle bearing No. KA- 13/V-9661, the concerned medical officer has not informed to the jurisdictional police though it is registered as medico legal case. Accordingly, concerned medical officer has failed to discharge his legal duties. The Trial Court has observed on the basis of documents i.e., Ex.P10 and Ex.R2 that the concerned medical officer has struck out the word 'car' and has mentioned it as 'bike'. Mere striking out of the word 'car' does not mean that the accident has not occurred for the reason that the concerned medical officer has specifically stated that registration number of offending vehicle is No.KA-13/V-9661 which is not disputed by the other side. Respondent No.2 has not pleaded anything in the written objection that medical officer has created the registration number of offending vehicle. Therefore, mere striking the word 'car' in Ex.P10 is not a ground to reject the claim petition. 19. It is relevant to mention here as to the provision of Rule 232 of Chapter VII of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The same reads as under: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 "232. Duties of Insurance Company - It shall be the duty of the Divisional Manager or the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company, as expeditiously as possible, to- (a) move an application in Form 63 before the Investigating Police Officer with prescribed fees, if any and gather full information about the accident, at the earliest, after receiving information about it, or on receipt of notice from the Claims Tribunals under Rule 235; (b) ascertain and verify facts about insurance of motor vehicle(s) involved in the accident and confirm the same to the Claims Tribunal within thirty days of receiving notice of the claim case; (c) move application before the concerned registering authority in Form 63-A and gather information about the motor vehicle(s) involved, and the driving license(s) held by the driver(s) thereof as per details mentioned in Form 63-B; (d) deposit with the written statement in the Claims Tribunal, the amount equivalent to the compensation, awardable on the principle of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act in such cases where the information received in Form 63 confirms death or permanent disability to have been caused as a result of the use of the motor vehicle covered by the insurance certificate/policy issued by it." 20. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company has not taken any steps as required under the provisions of Section 232 in Chapter VII of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Further, it is submitted that delay of two days in filing the complaint does not favor the case of claimant for the reason that the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 claimant has clearly explained in Ex.P1-complaint that since he was taking treatment in the hospital and the rider of the motorcycle assured him that he will pay the medical expenses, he could not file the complaint in time. Since the rider of the offending vehicle has not paid the medical expenses as assured by him, then only he has filed the complaint to the police, as such, there is delay in filing the complaint and the same is also shown in First Information Report. Since the claimant has offered proper explanation as to delay in filing the complaint, the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the claim petition. 21. A perusal of entire evidence placed before this Court, I am of the considered opinion that the claimant has placed sufficient material to prove that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-13/V-9661. Accordingly, I answer Points 1 and 2 in affirmative. Regarding Point No.3: 22. Since the claimant has proved that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the rider of motorbike, he is entitled for compensation. To substantiate - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 the claim of the claimant, PW.1 has deposed in his evidence as to the injuries sustained to him and also treatment taken by him in the hospital. In addition to all these aspects, the claimant has produced wound certificate marked as Ex.P4 in which the injuries caused to him are shown as under: (i) Laceration over (L) shoulder (ii) Laceration over (R) ankle 4 x 7 cm. (iii) fracture upper end of humerus (L) iv) fracture inferior globoid process v) displaced fracture of posterior tibial.. 23. The doctor has opined that injuries 3, 4 and 5 are grievous in nature and injury No.2 is simple in nature. The claimant has also produced Ex.P8 - cash bill amounting to Rs.3,200/- pertaining to CT-scan and medical bill of Rs.2,050/- and another medical bill for Rs.100/-. Further, the discharge summary sheet issued by Hospital reveals that the claimant was admitted to the hospital on 05.01.2014 at 9.30 p.m. and discharged on 14.01.2014 and was an inpatient for 10 days and the final diagnosis also shown in the summary sheet as: "surgical neck of humerus clavicle lateral end" - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 24. Ex.P10 - Medical Certificate reveals that the claimant has sustained the following injuries: Laceration (+) over the (L) shoulder Laceration (+) over the (R) ankle 25. The disability assessment and X-ray are marked as Exs.P11 & P17 respectively. In Ex.P4-wound certificate at Sl.No.4, it is shown that fracture upper end of humerus (left) but the same is not shown in the discharge summary at Ex.P9 and therefore, the same cannot be accepted. Further, considering the injuries shown in the wound certificate, except Sl.No.4, the period of treatment taken in the hospital as an inpatient and also the medical expenses, it is just and proper to award compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Head Amount (Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering 30,000.00 2. Medical expenses 2,550.00 3. Loss of income during treatment period (10 days) 10,000.00 4. Food, attendant and nourishment charges 10,000.00 5. Loss of amenities 20,000.00 Total 72,550.00 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31115 MFA No. 4956 of 2015 31. For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 25.3.2015 passed in MVC No.738/2014 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Hassan, is set aside. iii. The claim petition in MVC No.738/2014 is allowed in part holding that the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.72,550/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till the date of its realization. iv. Respondent No.2 being the insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. v. Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE BKM/SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18