- 1 - MFA No. 2272 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2272 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, II FLOOR, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H.R. VINOD KUMAR @ VINOD AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O H RAMAIAH, R/A NO.9, 1ST MAIN, COCONUT GARDEN MANJUNATHANAGAR, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 072. 2. K VISHWANATH MAJOR, S/O K P KRISHNA MURTHY, NO.172, CHBS LAYOUT, OPP: BDA COMPLEX, VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.NAGARAJA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DTD: 24.03.2015 NOTICE TO R2 – D/WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS HEAR THE PARTIES AND ALLOW THE - 2 - MFA No. 2272 of 2015 APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.01.2015 PASSED BY MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SCCH-14, BANGALORE, IN M.V.C.NO.71 OF 2014 WITH COSTS IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned judgment and award 01.01.2015 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-14) (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.V.C.No.71/2014, partly allowing the claim petition by awarding a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, only on the ground of liability. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal for easy reference. - 3 - MFA No. 2272 of 2015 The brief facts of the case are that:- 3. On 26.07.2013 at about 9.00 a.m., the petitioner was riding the Motorcycle bearing No.KA-02-HV-3677 on Nagarabhavi main road, Bengaluru, when he reached near Byraveswara Government College, at that time, a Car bearing No.KA-02-Z-2799 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner’s vehicle. Due to which, petitioner sustained grievous injuries to his both legs and was shifted to Sridevi Hospital and was treated as an inpatient. Hence, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the MV Act’ for short) claiming compensation. 4. After issuance of notice, the respondent No.1/Insurance Company has appeared through its counsel and filed statement of objection. Respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and was placed ex-parte. 5. In order to substantiate the case of the claimant, the claimant got himself examined as PW-1 and - 4 - MFA No. 2272 of 2015 examined treated Doctor as PW-2 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P11. On the other hand, respondents neither examined nor adduced any evidence. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and held that the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay a total compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing No.KA-02-Z-2799. It has contended that the offending Car has not involved in the accident and it is clear from the police record and as per the sketch that alleged accident has occurred on the middle of the road and the petitioner has also contributed negligence to the accident and the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the police have failed to forward the documents and there is delay in lodging the complaint. It - 5 - MFA No. 2272 of 2015 has also contended that the petitioner as well as the driver of the offending vehicle were not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Despite these infirmities, the Tribunal fastened entire negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle, ignoring the defence evidence and circumstances which demonstrated contributory negligence of the claimant. It has also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. It further contended that treated doctor has admitted that there was no surgery conducted since injured refused and the claimant has not suffered any disability. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation under the head ‘loss of future income’ by considering the disability at 10%. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has contended that treated Doctor has been examined as PW-2 and he has stated that petitioner has suffered 35% disability to the particular limb and 12% to the whole - 6 - MFA No. 2272 of 2015 body. As the claimant has refused to undergo surgery due to paucity of funds but he has undergone POP treatment and has recovered. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation under the head ‘loss of future income’ by considering the fact that even though the petitioner was a student he was doing part time job. He further contends that the Tribunal has erred in taking notional income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- per month as the accident is of the year 2013, notional income ought to have taken at Rs.8,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period and the compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of amenities’ is also on the lower side. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 10. Though the Insurance Company has pleaded that there is non-involvement of vehicle, it is an admitted - 7 - MFA No. 2272 of 2015 fact that the accident has occurred on 26.07.2013 at 9.00 a.m. on the following day i.e., on 27.07.2013 Spot Panchanama was conducted. In the Spot Panchanama, there is clear mention of Car bearing No.KA-02-Z-2799. 11. The Tribunal having considered the entire material on record, answered issue No.1 framed on rash and negligent driving, against the driver of the Car, holding that the driver of the Car was rash and negligent and reason for the accident. In view of the same, held the insurer of the Car liable to pay compensation. In these circumstances, I do not see any infirmities in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The Judgment and award dated 01.01.2015 in MVC No.71/2014 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-14), is hereby affirmed. - 8 - MFA No. 2272 of 2015 iii) The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. iv) Balance amount along with interest ordered by the Tribunal shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. v) On deposit, entire amount shall be released in favour of the respondent No.1 – claimant forthwith. vi) Registry is directed to remit the entire trial Court records along with copy of this judgment to the Tribunal forthwith without giving any room for delay. vii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE MH/-