- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3518 MFA No. 24080 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24080 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 1628, KAIKINI ROAD, KARWAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ULLAS SHIVANANDA PAVASKAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: PAPER AGENCY & BUSINESS, R/O: BHAGATH SINGH ROAD, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR. 2. SRI NAVEENA SUBRAYA GOWDA, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: KESHARAKOPPA, POST: KANGOD, SIRSI TALUK, DIST: KARWAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. V. VIDYA IYER, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.07.2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SIRSI, IN MVC NO.68/2011, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3518 MFA No. 24080 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 25.07.2013 in MVC No.68/2011, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsi. 2. It is the case of the appellant/insurance company that on 19.03.2011 at about 01.13 p.m., within the limits of New Market Police Station, Sirsi, on a public road at Marathikoppa near Ashok Kumar Hospital, while claimant being pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-31-Q-9815, the rider of the motorcycle rode the same in rash and negligent manner, due to which he lost control over the same and as a result, the motorcycle turtled. Therefore, the claimant fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3518 MFA No. 24080 of 2013 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident is caused on 19.03.2011 but complaint was lodged on 23.03.2011 and therefore, there is four days delay in lodging the complaint and further the claimant had fallen himself on the ground but not by driving of the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 5. Though the accident is caused on 19.03.2011, the complaint is lodged on 23.03.2011 and there is four days delay in lodging the complaint and that delay alone cannot be made as a ground to reject the claim petition. The delay can be considered according to facts and circumstances in each case. Here, the claimant was in hospital and primary importance and paramount thing is to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3518 MFA No. 24080 of 2013 give medical treatment to the claimant rather than lodging complaint before the Police. Therefore, considering these aspects, just because there is delay of four days in lodging complaint, that cannot disprove the factum of the accident and injuries sustained. 6. The medical evidence on record proved the fact that the claimant had fallen from the motorcycle and sustained injuries. The history of admission of claimant to the hospital is shown as the claimant has fallen from the motorcycle and sustained injuries. 7. It is argued that it is a self fall case of the claimant, but the fact remain proved that the claimant while he was pillion rider had fallen from the motor vehicle on the ground and sustained injuries. The complaint and FIR proved the fact that due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle, the accident is caused. Hence, it is proved that due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle, the accident is caused. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3518 MFA No. 24080 of 2013 8. On considering the quantum of compensation awarded and the evidence on record, the Doctor-PW-3 who is a Neuro Surgeon has stated that the claimant is suffering with intermittent head-ache, loss of memory, difficulty in speaking and right side of the body was weakened and unable to do his profession. Therefore, further evidence of Doctor-PW-2 that due to those disabilities, the claimant cannot perform his routine work and those disabilities are permanent in nature. Therefore, assessed the total permanent physical disability about 35% to 40% and Doctor has held that the claimant has suffered 35% of permanent physical disability and accordingly awarded compensation. Therefore, considering the quantum of compensation awarded, the Tribunal has correctly assessed permanent physical disability and has taken monthly income at Rs.3,000/- and accordingly, compensation awarded is correct. The claimant has not filed any appeal seeking enhancement. Therefore, whatever the compensation awarded by the tribunal is found to be just and proper and correct. Hence, with - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3518 MFA No. 24080 of 2013 regard to quantum also there is no need to make interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 9. The amount is deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50