- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5733-DB MFA No. 202819 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 203513 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202819 OF 2025 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.203513 OF 2025 (MV-D) IN MFA No.202819/2025: BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CENTURY COMPLEX, OPP. SANGAM TALKIES, SUPER MARKET, KALABURAGI, (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY KALABURAGI). …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALASHREE W/O RAMESH, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. KAMALABAI W/O JHARANAPPA, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 3. JHARANAPPA S/O HANMANTHAPPA, AGE: 68 YEARS OCC: NIL, Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5733-DB MFA No. 202819 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 203513 of 2025 4. M. VISHAL S/O RAMESH, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 5. SHREYA D/O RAMESH, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 6. SPOORTI D/O RAMESH, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, RESP. NO 4 TO 6 HEREIN ARE MINORS, U/G OF THEIR REAL MOTHER RESP. No.1 HEREIN, ALL R/O. IP HOSALI CHIMMAIDLAI, TQ. CHINCHOLI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 101. 7. MURUGADASS S/O SUDHARAYAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING No. TN-52/B-3790, R/O. No. 2/461, THANEERPANTAL STREET KATTAVARAM, PALAYAM POLUR TIRIVANNALAI-01. 8. YAYABAL RAJ X S/O XAVIER, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING No. TN-52/B3790, R/O. 10/11, VELALAR STREET, KULTITALI THALAI, T K KARUR, TAMILNADU-04. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJEEV PATIL, ADV. FOR C/R1 TO R6) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT. 20-01-2025 IN MVC NO.617/2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND ADDL. MACT. AT KALABURAGI. IN MFA No.203513/2025: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MALASHREE W/O RAMESH, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5733-DB MFA No. 202819 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 203513 of 2025 2. SMT. KAMALABAI W/O JHARANAPPA, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 3. JHARANAPPA S/O HANMANTHAPPA, AGE: 68 YEARS OCC: NIL, 4. M. VISHAL S/O RAMESH, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 5. SHREYA D/O RAMESH, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 6. SPOORTI D/O RAMESH, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, APPELLANTS No. 4 TO 6 ARE MINORS, U/G OF THEIR REAL MOTHER SMT. MALASHREE @ APPELLANT No.1, ALL R/O. IP HOSALI CHIMMAIDLAI, TQ. CHINCHOLI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 307. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MURUGADASS S/O SUDHARAYAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING No. TN-52/B-3790, R/O. No. 2/461, THANEERPANTAL STREET KATTAVARAM, PALAYAM POLUR TIRIVANNALAI-01. 2. MR. YAYABAL RAJ X S/O XAVIER, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING No. TN-52/B3790, R/O. 10/11, VELALAR STREET, KULTITALI THALAI, T K KARUR, TAMILNADU-04. 3. UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CENTURY COMPLEX, OPP. SANGAM THEATER, SUPER MARKET, KALABURAGI-02. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R3; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5733-DB MFA No. 202819 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 203513 of 2025 V/O. DTD. 01.09.2025, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO EXERCISE ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION, CALL FOR THE ENTIRE LOWER Court RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL Judge AND JMFC AND ADDL. MACT, KALABURAGI IN MVC No.617/2022 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS PRAYED FOR. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) These appeals being MFA No.202819/2025 and MFA No.203513/2025 filed by appellant – Insurance Company as well as appellants/claimants calling in question the judgment and award dated 20.01.2025 in MVC No.617/2022 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl. MACT, at Kalaburagi on the ground of liability as well as on quantum of compensation by the appellant–Insurance Company and inadequate compensation by the appellants/claimants. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5733-DB MFA No. 202819 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 203513 of 2025 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, death of Ramesh S/o. Jharanappa are not dispute. The only dispute is in respect to liability and quantum. As per the appellant–Insurance Company, there is involvement of vehicle and Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Alternatively, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant requires reconsideration and re-determination. So far as appellants/claimants are concerned, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate required to be enhanced. 3. Heard Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company in MFA No.202819/2025 and Sri.Sanjeev Patil, the learned counsel appearing for appellants/claimants in MFA No.203513/2025. 4. Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, the learned counsel in MFA No.202819/2025 with all vehemence submitted that when the complaint was registered only the vehicle - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5733-DB MFA No. 202819 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 203513 of 2025 number was shown in the complaint but name of driver was not stated so far as the name of the person who has been shown as informant subsequently in the charge sheet, the same person is shown as the complainant. As such, the same person cannot be an informant and complainant and so also, as per the charge sheet Ex.P.9 the driver by name Shiva, whose name was not shown in the FIR was charge sheeted, who is said to be released on 19.02.2022 whereas the accident has occurred on 13.02.2022. As the name of the driver did not find place in the FIR, he has been planted to make the claimants to seek compensation. In these circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and in the alternative the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant requires interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal. 5. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5733-DB MFA No. 202819 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 203513 of 2025 No.203513/2025 with all vehemence submitted that the informant and complainant are one and the same. So for as the contention of the learned counsel of the appellant – Insurance Company that the FIR number stated in first information and in the complaint are difference in mentioning 6. A perusal of the certified complaint and FIR wherein the numbers mentioned in Gujurathi, the number shown is same. However in the translated copy of complaint in last three digits there is some difference, as 2038 instead of 0238. In these circumstances, there were mistakes in the typed copies while translating the original copy from Gujarati to English. As such, the same is not fatal to the case on hand. So far as the informant and complainant are concerned, they are the one and the same person. So far as the contention that the name of the driver did not find place in the FIR is concerned, it has no relevance because the Police during the investigation since the name of the agency and the number of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5733-DB MFA No. 202819 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 203513 of 2025 vehicle were clearly stated upon during the course of investigation found that one Shiva was driving the said offending truck. In these circumstance, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the aspect of liability does not require any interference. So far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has not awarded appropriate compensation, taking into consideration appropriate income of the deceased, which requires re-determination and reconsideration. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal and dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant – Insurance Company. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers. The only question that would arise for consideration is: “Whether the appellant- Insurance Company as well as the claimant have made out any case to interfere in the judgment passed by the Tribunal on the ground of liability as well as quantum ?”. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5733-DB MFA No. 202819 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 203513 of 2025 8. Our answer to the above point for consideration is in ‘negative’ for the following; R E A S O N. Admittedly, as could be seen from the records, the number of the FIR mentioned in the FIR as well as in the complaint are one and the same which are clearly stated in the Gujarati language. However, while translating the same into English, there is some discrepancy, which is not fatal to the case. So far as the informant and the complaint is concerned, he is one and the same. The name of the informant stated and translated as complainant in the translation being one and the same is not of much relevance for consideration. So far as the name of the driver not stated in the provided place in the FIR and his being shown as the driver in the charge sheet is not fatal to the case and does not give a right to the insurance company to take a defense of planting of driver. In view of the mention of the vehicle number in complaint during the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5733-DB MFA No. 202819 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 203513 of 2025 course of investigation the Police found that, the person by name Shiva was driving the vehicle. In these circumstances, all the contentions raised by the appellant- Insurance Company requires to be rejected and accordingly rejected. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, Tribunal taking the entire material on record. With respect to the age of the deceased as ‘42’ years and applying the appropriate multiplier as well as adding 25% towards ‘Future Prospects’ to the existing income fixed under the chart, awarded appropriate compensation under all the heads, which does not call for any interference at the ends of this Court. Accordingly, we proceeds to pass the following: O R D E R i) Both the appeals filed by appellant – Insurance Company as well as appellants/claimants are dismissed as sans merits. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5733-DB MFA No. 202819 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 203513 of 2025 ii) The amount in deposit in the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith for disbursement. iii) The appellant-Insurance Company shall deposit the balance compensation amount as ordered by the Tribunal along with accrued interest, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv) Disbursement as well as apportionment of the compensation amount shall be as per the impugned order of the Tribunal. v) No order as to cost. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT: AK