- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3474-DB MFA No. 104437 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102500 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104437 OF 2018 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102500 OF 2019 (MV-D) IN MFA.NO.104437 OF 2018: BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD BALLARI-583101 REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.PARASURAM SON OF LATE LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT: 57 YEARS, R/O: 19th WARD, COWL PETE NEAR MADI GUDI, HOSAPETE, NOW RESIDING AT MILLERPET BALLARI-583101. 2. SMT RENUKA WIFE OF K. PARASURURAMA, AGED ABOUT: 52 YEARS, R/O: 19TH WARD, COWL PETE, NEAR MADI GUDI, HOSAPETE, NOW RESIDING AT MILLERPET BALLARI-583101. 3. KUMARI K. SAVITHRI D/O. K. PARASURURAMA, AGED ABOUT: 18 YEARS, R/O: 19TH WARD, COWL PETE, NEAR MADI GUDI, HOSPETE, NOW RESIDING AT MILLERPET BALLARI-583101. 4. MINOR K. USHA DAUGHTER OF K. PARASURURAMA Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3474-DB MFA No. 104437 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102500 of 2019 AGED ABOUT:15 YEARS, R/O: 19TH WARD, COWL PETE NEAR MADI GUDI, HOSPETE, NOW RESIDING AT MILLERPET BALLARI 583101 SINCE PETITIONER NO 4 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. RENUKA W/O K. PARASURAM. 5. GOPALA KRISHNA. M SON OF M. ANJANEYULU AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS, DRIVER CUM OWNER OF THE MAHINDRA MAX CAB AUTO BEARING NO KA-34/B-1544 R/O 2ND CROSS, 16TH WARD INDIRA NAGAR BEHIND GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE BALLARI 583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH JADAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4; R4 IS MINOR REP. BY R2; R5 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.844/2016. IN MFA NO. 102500 OF 2019: BETWEEN: 1. GOPALA KRISHNA M S/O. M. ANJANEYULU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, DRIVER CUM OWNER OF THE MAHINDRA MAX CAB AUTO BEARING REG. NO. KA-34/B-1544 R/O 2ND CROSS, 16TH WARD, INDIRA NAGAR BEHIND GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE BALLARI-583101. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3474-DB MFA No. 104437 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102500 of 2019 BALLARI PIN 583101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH JADAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.PARASURAM SON OF LATE LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O 19TH WARD, COWL PETE, NEAR MADI GUDI, HOSAPETE, NOW RESIDING AT: MILLERPET BALLARI-583101. 2. SMT RENUKA WIFE OF K PARASURURAMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O 19TH WARD, COWL PETE, NEAR MADI GUDI, HOSAPETE, NOW RESIDING AT” MULLERPET BALLARI 583101. 3. KUMARI SAVITHRI D/O. K PARASURURAMA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O 19TH WARD, COWL PETE NEAR MADI GUDI, HOSPETE, NOW RESIDING AT MILLERPET BALLARI 583101. 4. MINOR K USHA DAUGHTER OF K PARASURURAMA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, R/O 19TH WARD, COWL PETE NEAR MADI GUDI, HOSPETE, NOW RESIDING AT MILLERPET BALLARI 583101 SINCE PETITIONER NO.4 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY: THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. RENUKA W/O. K. PARASURAM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.844/2016 AND ETC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3474-DB MFA No. 104437 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102500 of 2019 THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE JUDGMENT THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD) These appeals are as against the judgment and award dated 04.09.2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - XI and Second Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ballari - [for short, “The Tribunal”]. The appeal by the Insurer of one of the vehicles involved in the accident [a Mahindra Maxi Cab bearing Registration No. KA-34/B-1544 – hereafter referred to as the Maxi Cab] is in MFA.No.104437/2018. The appeal by the claimants, who are the parents and siblings of the deceased K. Suresh, is in MFA.No.102500/2019. The deceased K. Suresh was riding a two-wheeler [Motorcycle No. KA-34/ED-9993] at the time of the accident. 2. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award dated 04.09.2018 has allowed the claim petition, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3474-DB MFA No. 104437 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102500 of 2019 granting to the claimants a total sum of Rs.13,46,000/- under the following heads: Sl. No Heads Amount 1. Towards loss of dependency : Rs.12,96,000/- 2. Towards loss of love and affection : Rs.20,000/- 3. Towards loss of transportation of dead body and cremation : Rs.30,000/- Total : Rs.13,46,000/- Sri. G. N. Raichur, the learned counsel for the Insurer, submits that the Insurer is in appeal being aggrieved by the Tribunal’s finding about the involvement of the Maxi Cab, while Sri. Manjunath Jadai, the learned counsel for the claimants, contends that the claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The learned counsels are heard, and the records are perused. 3. Sri. G. N. Raichur submits that the alleged road accident involving the two-wheeler and the Maxi Cab is on 18.04.2016; that the information about the accident is registered in Crime No.46/2016 on the same date with the first claimant [the first respondent] stating that the accident - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3474-DB MFA No. 104437 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102500 of 2019 has occurred at 1.15 p.m.; that it stated in the information that the accident is because of the rash and negligent driving of a “White Passenger Auto” but the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the Maxi Cab because of the first claimant’s subsequent statement dated 28.04.2016. The learned counsel argues that the first claimant’s statement cannot take the place of evidence to establish the involvement of the Maxi Cab, especially when the Motor Vehicle Report [Ex.P7] states that this vehicle had no visible fresh damage. 4. Sri. Manjunath Jadai submits that the probative value of the police records in deciding the claim petitions under the M V Act is well established and the probative value of these documents is not undermined in this case. The learned counsel submits that the Charge- sheet is rightly filed against the driver of the Maxi Cab after due investigation. On the outcome of the criminal prosecutions, the learned counsel states that the driver of the Maxi Cab [the accused] is acquitted. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3474-DB MFA No. 104437 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102500 of 2019 5. The first claimant in his subsequent statement [Ex.P2], which is recorded on 28.04.2016, has stated [i] that he filed the first information after shifting his deceased son to a hospital by ambulance; [ii] that a certain Thayappa @ Thayanna was present at the place of accident, [iii] that Sri Thayappa told him that he can identify the offending vehicle and the driver thereof; [iv] that when the police called upon him to identify the driver and the vehicle, he is giving his further statement identifying the Maxi Cab as involved in the accident and the charge sheeted driver as the person who was driving the vehicle. 6. Sri Thayappa’s statement is also recorded. It is seen from Thayappa’s statement, which is also recorded on 28.04.2016, that he states that the deceased, upon being hit by the Maxi Cab, suffered injuries, including injuries in the genital area. This Thayappa is not examined in the present proceedings, and the records available as of now do not show whether he was examined in the criminal proceedings though he is cited as a witness in the charge - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3474-DB MFA No. 104437 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102500 of 2019 sheet. The Postmortem Report dated 19.04.2016 is examined in light of this evidence, and this Court must observe that the Doctor’s opinion is that the death is because of shock and hemorrhage as a result multiple injuries mentioned while observing in the prescribed column of the Report that the vital organs were intact and there were only abrasion injuries. This Report does not mention to any injury in the genital area. 7. Further, the first claimant in his chief examination has not mentioned when he was informed about the accident, the time he reached the place of accident, the time taken to shift his injured son to the Hospital and the efforts made between 18.04.2016 and 28.04.2016 to verify the whereabouts of the offending vehicle and its driver. The Tribunal, notwithstanding these circumstances, has opined that the accident is because of the rash and negligent driving of the Maxi Cab reasoning opining that the Police records probabalise the claimant’s case and there is no reason to disbelieve such case. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3474-DB MFA No. 104437 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102500 of 2019 8. This Court is not persuaded to opine that it is just to infer from the evidence presently on record that the Maxi Cab is involved in the accident. If in the absence of these materials circumstances, the Tribunal’s findings prevail, it will be despite lack of material. There must be complete evidence on all the material details, and both parties must have the liberty to lead evidence to bring forth such material circumstances. In view of this conclusion, this Court is of the considered view that leaving open the question of quantum to be considered by the Tribunal after answering Issue No.1 on the involvement of the Cab, the appeals must be disposed of remanding the matter back for reconsideration with opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The appeals are disposed of setting aside the judgment and award dated 04.09.2018 in MVC.No.844/2016, remanding the matter for - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3474-DB MFA No. 104437 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102500 of 2019 reconsideration. The claimants and the Insurer, without further notice, shall appear before the Tribunal on 24.03.2025. The Tribunal, given the circumstances, shall make all efforts to dispose of the petition expeditiously and in any event before 30.11.2025. ii. The amount deposited by the insurer in terms of interim order granted in these appeals shall continue to be in income yielding deposit until the disposal of the claim petition. The statutory amount deposited by the insurer in its appeal shall also be transferred to the Tribunal to be in such investment. SD/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM/CT:VG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20