- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3980 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O B. GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT CHOWDANEHALLI VILLAGE NARASAPURA VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT - 563 133. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MADHU C G S/O G GOPALAPPA MAJOR IN AGE RESIDING AT C.R.P.F QUARTERS HQ/MT, YELAHANKA BANGALORE 64. 2. THE TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR, JP & DEVI JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE NO.69, MILLERS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 052 REP: BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 22.11.2017, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED29.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.8948/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE (SCCH-18), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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 for setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2012 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18), (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC.No.8948/2010. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case of the parties are as that, on 23.06.2010, the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-50-J-6640 and her son Murali was riding the said vehicle. On Vijayapura- Chikkaballapura road, her son Murali rode the same in a rash and negligent manner due to which the vehicle got skid and the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. She took treatment as in-patient. She has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons prayed to award compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 was ex-parte, before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the contentions of the claim petition. It also contended that the rider of the motor cycle was one Madhu but claimant contended that one of her son Murali was riding it, just to avoid the liability. It denied its liability to pay the compensation. 5. From rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. The claimant to prove her case examined two witnesses as PWs-1 and 2 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to 11. Respondent examined two witnesses as RW-1 and 2 and marked Exs.R1 to R3. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the son of the claimant i.e. Murali was not riding the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 vehicle and on the basis of the record Tribunal held that Madhu was riding the said vehicle. The claimant has not approached the Court with clean hands, therefore, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that fact of the accident was not proved. The said impugned judgment is challenged in the present appeal. 7. I have heard the arguments. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the fact of the accident is not in dispute. The only contention of respondent No.2 is that Murali was not riding the said vehicle and Madhu was riding the vehicle and Madhu was not possessing a valid and effective driving license and he was also serving in CRPF. Therefore, just to avoid facing the court trial, Murali was substituted in the place of Madhu but there is no evidence in this regard. The Tribunal on the basis of the presumption and assumption held that Madhu might be rider of the motor cycle, therefore, held that claimant has not proved the incident and dismissed the claim petition. The accident took place during the year 2010 and sufficient materials were available to assess the compensation. If the matter is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 remanded then the claimant would not get fruits of the award. At the time of filing of the petition, he was aged about 50 years, therefore, on the basis of the available materials, compensation may be awarded. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the claimant was aged about 50 years. She sustained fracture of right femur. As per the evidence of PW-2 she has been suffering from permanent disability of 25% to the whole body. She has produced the medical bill in support of her contention. She was an agriculturist and home maker and she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. On the basis of the above said materials just and reasonable amount of compensation may be awarded. 10. Learned counsel for respondent – insurer contended that the claimant has not approached the Court with clean hands. Ex.R2 shows that said Madhu was present along with her in the hospital. In the evidence of PW-1 she has stated that said Madhu was along with her. The said fact indicates that Madhu was riding the motor cycle otherwise it was not possible for him to remain with claimant at the time of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 accident. The Tribunal considering the same, rightly held that said Murali was not riding the motor cycle at the time of incident and it does not call for any interference by this Court. He further submitted that since the compensation needs to be assessed, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for consideration of the same. He also contended that the injuries are not proved, the disability stated by PW-2 is exorbitant. She was a home maker. She has no source of income. Therefore, if this Court is inclined to award compensation, a reasonable amount may be granted, taking into consideration the aforementioned facts. 11. The following question arises for my consideration: i. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that rider of the motor cycle was substituted and claimant has not approached the Court with clean hands. Therefore, she is not entitled for compensation? ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? 12. Point No.1 : As submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, fact of the accident is not in dispute. The only - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 question for consideration is who was riding the motor cycle at the time of accident? 13. According to the claimant, her son Murali was riding the motor cycle. The contention of respondent No.2 is that Madhu was riding the said motor cycle at the time of accident, since he was serving in CRPF, just to avoid the trial of the said Madhu, the said Murali was falsely implicated in this case and in addition to that Madhu had no driving licence to drive the vehicle. 14. It is the assertive case of respondent – insurer that said Madhu was riding the motor cycle and not Murali and a criminal case was registered after 8 days from the date of accident i.e. on 30.06.2010 around 5.00 p.m. Explanation for delay in filing the complaint is mentioned in FIR. The claimant has stated that she was unaware of the alleged complaint, therefore, she did not report the matter to the police. The said reason is not justifiable because according to the claimant said Madhu who is said to be working in CRPF, was with her at the time of accident he might be possessing knowledge to file a complaint. Since the accident is not seriously disputed, that is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 not of much importance. The complaint was given by claimant, which is part of Ex.P1. It shows that said Murali was riding the vehicle. Ex.P4 – Wound Certificate shows that she sustained injury in vehicle accident. The discharge summary produced shows that "alleged road traffic accident/skid from bike took place on 23.06.2010 near Chikkanahalli tank on Vijayapura, Chikkaballapura road." The said document also does not show the name of the rider of the motor cycle. Ex.R2 is the true copy of accident register extract. The said document does not show that said Madhu was riding the motor cycle but it only indicates that Madhu brought her to the hospital and signed on the said document. There is inconsistency in the said entry since it was not seriously in dispute and there is no need to discuss the same. 15. According to the entry, in Ex.R2 she was brought to the hospital on 23.06.2010 at around 1:00 p.m., whereas the report states that the accident occurred at 2:00 p.m. It must therefore be explained by the person who made the entry as to how she could have arrived at the hospital before the accident occurred. Similarly, the presence of Madhu as the rider of the motorcycle cannot be believed, even by any stretch of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 imagination. In the cross-examination of PW-1, nothing was brought out to support the claim that Madhu was riding the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal’s finding that Madhu was riding the motorcycle, and the respondents’ contention that Murali was substituted as the rider to protect him, is not supported by any oral or documentary evidence. 16. The investigating officer has investigated the matter, submitted the charge sheet against Murali. The materials prima facie prove that accident occured due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by Murali. For the above reasons, I answer point No.1 in the Negative. 17. It is true that the Tribunal has not assessed the amount of compensation. If the matter is remanded to the Tribunal, it will take its own time, just to assess the compensation. The claimant has produced the records to assess the compensation, which is already available on record. Under 41 Rule 30 of CPC, this Court can consider the same to assess the compensation. It is also for the benefit of respondents, they may be liable to pay the interest on the compensation amount and delay in disposal of the matter may lead to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 additional interest to be payable by the respondents. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that if this Court assesses the compensation, he would lose his right to challenge the same, cannot be a valid ground for remanding the matter. The Appellate Court, which is final court for for re-assessment of facts, cannot remand the case to the Tribunal solely on that basis. Remand is justified only in cases where additional evidence needs to be recorded or where the matter requires a full trial. 18. PW-1 has stated about the injuries sustained by her. Exs.P4 and 5 are wound certificate and discharge summary which indicates that she had sustained fracture of neck and right femur, for which she underwent surgery. She was admitted as in patient from 23.06.2010 to 14.07.2010, for nearly 21 days. PW-2 in his evidence has stated that he had treated her in Jalappa hospital and Research centre, NH-4, Tamaka, Kolar and described the disability suffered from her and assessed the disability to an extent of 15% to the right lower limb and 25% to the whole body. In his cross- examination by respondent No.2, he admitted that the discharge summary does not bear his name or signature. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 Furthermore, they have not produced the case sheet to establish that the injured was actually treated by them. The said facts are not sufficient to disbelieve his evidence. The disability calculated by him to the whole body is incorrect. If disability to the lower limb is converted to whole body, then it will be 1/3rd. Considering the same, the disability to the whole body is considered as 15%. 19. The claimant has produced the medical bills of the hospital. The bill is said to be Rs.16,785/-. It appears 50% of the said amount has been given as discount and he was liable to pay Rs.8,393/- out of Rs.16,785/-, which is noted in Ex.P7. Remaining bill amount is Rs.700/-. PW-2 in his evidence has stated that claimant had to undergo surgery and according to him she has to spend Rs.60,000/- to Rs.80,000/- towards future medical expenses. At the time of recording evidence, she had not undergone surgery, and even after 15 years, no documents have been produced to show that any surgery was performed. However, considering the evidence on record, a reasonable amount of compensation should be awarded towards future medical expenses. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 20. She was treated as an in-patient and is a resident of Chandrahalli village. She received treatment at Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre in Kolar. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the claimant might have incurred expenses towards conveyance, attendant charges, and special diet. 21. The claimant contended that she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agricultural work but there is no materials to prove the said income. Therefore, notional income has to be assessed. Following the chart prepared by Karnataka Legal Services Authorities, her notional income is taken as Rs.5,500/- per month. The claimant in her pleadings and evidence contended that she was aged about 60 years. In the cross-examination she has stated she might be aged 59 to 60 years. Her age is considered around 59 to 60 years. In that event, multiplier applicable is ‘9’ as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC1 1 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 22. Claimant must have lost some of the amenities available to the normal person. Considering these facts following amount of compensation is awarded: SL.No. Particulars Amount(in Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering 40,000 2. Medical expenses 9,000 3. Attendance charges, special diet, conveyance charges 25,000 4. Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.5,500x3) 16,500 5. Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability (Rs.5,500x12x9x15%) 89,100 6. Loss of amenities 25,000 7. Future medical expenses 25,000 Total Rs.2,29,600/- 23. The respondents are liable to pay the said amount with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing till its realization. Appeal was filed after delay of 457 days. While allowing said application it was ordered that she is not entitled to interest for the delayed period. Hence claimant is not entitled to interest on the delayed period and also on future medical expenses. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 24. Accordingly, point No.2 answered partly in the affirmative. 25. For the above said discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 29.11.2012 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) is set aside. iii. The claim petition is allowed, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,29,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. Delayed period of 457 days and future medical expenses of Rs.25,000/- does not carry interest. iv. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v. Claimant was aged 60 years at the time of filing the claim petition, already 15 years is lapsed. Therefore, entire amount of compensation is ordered to be released to her on due identification. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25739 MFA No. 3980 of 2014 Send back the trial court records to the Tribunal along with the copy of the judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9