- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28323 MFA No. 808 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 808 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI RAJANNA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT MUDDINAPALYA VILLAGE SHIVAKOTE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562 157 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SHREEVIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD PADASENA NO.18/1 (OLD NO. 120/7) 3RD FLOOR, ASHOKA PILLAR ROAD JAYANAGAR I BLOCK, BANGALORE-560011. 2. SRI SANJAY VARGHESE S/O THANGAM VARGHESE MAJOR, R/AT NO. 6, 5TH LANE 3RD BLOCK, DASAPPA LAYOUT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE-560016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O MAHESH ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT. VISMAYA R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHETHAN KUMAR.H, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 ) Digitally signed by JYOTHI MANJUNATH Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28323 MFA No. 808 of 2014 MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.04.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.5770/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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 challenging the judgment and award dated 2nd April 2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Court of Small Causes, at Bengaluru, (for short 'the Tribunal'), in MVC No.5770/2010, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 09.02.2010, at about 7.45 a.m., the claimant was riding the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No. KA-50-J-596. At that time, he met with - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28323 MFA No. 808 of 2014 an accident due to rash and negligent driving of a car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-MC-5315 near Sambhram College. Due to the impact, he sustained fractures. He took treatment as inpatient in Karthika Hospital as well as in Manipal North side Hospital, Bengaluru. He has spent more than Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. He was an agriculturist and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in a accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed to award compensation. 4. Respondent No.1 is the Insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the said car. 5. Both the respondents appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 in its written statement denied the contents of the claim petition, denied its liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective Driving Licence to drive the vehicle. It is also contended that the accident occurred due to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28323 MFA No. 808 of 2014 negligence of the claimants as well as the driver of the vehicle and that the negligence of the claimant is more. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to compensation. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Respondent No.2 filed the written statement denying the contentions and he has stated that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation. He also contended that accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant and that the driver of the said vehicle is not responsible for the accident. With these reasons, he prays to dismiss the claim petition. 7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 8. The claimant to prove his case examined three witnesses as PWs-1 to 3 and marked 18 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-18. Respondent No.1 examined three - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28323 MFA No. 808 of 2014 witnesses as RWs-1 to 3 and marked 4 documents, as per Exs.R-1 to R-4. 9. The Tribunal after hearing the arguments of both parties and appreciating the materials available on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. The Tribunal on the basis of evidence of RW.1 suspected that respondent No.2 was not driving the vehicle and at the time of accident one Ravi chandran Suresh was driving the offending car but he was not charge sheeted, on that count directed respondent No.2 to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded a global compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 10. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that PW.1 is the victim of the accident as well as the eye witness and in his evidence, he has stated that the driver of the car was respondent No.2. In his cross-examination - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28323 MFA No. 808 of 2014 nothing was brought out to disbelieve his evidence. Respondent No.1 examined respondent No.2 and in his evidence (in examination-in-chief) he has stated that he was not driving the car but in the cross-examination of the claimant he has admitted that he was the driver of the car. He accepted that he was driving the vehicle and that he responded to the notice given by the police under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act and that he has also paid fine by pleading guilty in a criminal case registered against him. All these materials prove that he was driving the vehicle. He produced Ex.R.1 to prove that he was having a valid and effective Driving Licence. Respondent No. 1 contended, solely on a stray sentence stated in the evidence held that respondent No.2 was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Tribunal also believed the said stray sentence and held that respondent No.2 was not driving offending vehicle which is incorrect. Hence, prayed to interfere in the findings. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28323 MFA No. 808 of 2014 12. Learned counsel for the insurer–Respondent No. 1 contended that the evidence given by RW.1, stating that Ravi Chandran Suresh was driving the vehicle, is sufficient to believe that Respondent No. 2 was not driving the vehicle. The Tribunal in para 37 of the impugned judgment has reiterated the same and has rightly observed that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. There are no reasons to interfere in the said finding. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, more or less supported the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. 14. PW.1 is the claimant, in his evidence he has reiterated the petition averments and through him Exs.P.1 to 8 were marked. The respondent No.2 is owner of the offending car and he was charge sheeted for the accident in question for offence punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC. FIR was registered on the statement of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28323 MFA No. 808 of 2014 claimant on the very day of the incident and it was recorded in the hospital. The investigation was done and during the course of investigation respondent No.2 replied to a notice admitting that he was driver of the said car at the time of alleged accident. Even he pleaded guilty to the charges leveled against him. These facts, prima facie, prove that respondent No.2/RW.1 was driver of the offending vehicle. He has not challenged the said charge sheet. Now he cannot deny the said allegation. 15. On meaningful reading of evidence of RW.1, I am of the view that he was an unreliable witness. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that Ravi Chandran Suresh was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident. He also stated that police directed him to bring the said Ravi Chandran Suresh to the police station but he was unable to produce said Ravi Chandran Suresh to Police Station since by that time Ravi Chandran Suresh left Bengaluru and was staying in Kerala and he was unaware - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28323 MFA No. 808 of 2014 of address of Ravi Chandran Suresh. Therefore, he was charge sheeted for the said offence. 16. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was driving the vehicle and he replied to the notice of police that he was owner as well as driver of the said vehicle and he pleaded guilty in the concerned Court at Bengaluru. Statements made in examination- in-chief of this witness is totally contrary to his cross-examination. Therefore, only on the basis of his examination-in-chief, it cannot be held that one Ravi Chandran Suresh was driving the offending car. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in a right perspective. 17. In a criminal trial proving of identity is more important to convict him. In MVC cases proving of involvement of vehicle is necessary. Undisputedly, the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and its involvement is not in dispute. As submitted by learned counsel for the claimant, even if it is believed that the said - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28323 MFA No. 808 of 2014 driver had no valid and effective Driving Licence, it will not absolve the respondent No.1 from its liability to pay compensation. At the most, as held by the catena of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Full bench of this Court, the insurer shall pay the compensation and it is at liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 18. As discussed in above paras, on re-appreciation of the evidence available on record, I am of the view that the said vehicle was driven by respondent No.2 at the time of accident, who had a valid and effective Driving Licence. 19. The Tribunal has awarded global compensation of Rs.50,000/- by the impugned judgment. On re- appreciating the evidence available on record, it appears the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Injuries sustained and treatment taken by the claimant, are discussed in para Nos.24 to 26 of the impugned judgment. There is no need to reiterate the same. He had sustained two fractures, took treatment as - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28323 MFA No. 808 of 2014 inpatient. PW.2 assessed the disability at 16.9% to the whole body. Fracture was malinated. Considering all these facts, the Tribunal should have awarded compensation under each heading or otherwise should have awarded a just and reasonable amount of compensation. 20. According to the claimant, he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from agriculture and the same is not substantiated and therefore, his notional income has to be assessed. Following the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, notional income of the claimant is assessed as Rs.5,500/- per month. Atleast for 3 to 4 months he might not be in a position to attend to his work and thus, he has lost his income during the laid up period. 21. Looking at the nature of injuries and occupation of the claimant, the claimant is entitled for more amount of compensation towards loss of amenities instead of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28323 MFA No. 808 of 2014 meagre amount to be awarded under the head loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability. 22. On re-considering the said evidence, the claimant is entitled to the following amount of compensation:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 40,000/- Medical expenses 3,897/- Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.5,500/- x 3) 16,500/- Special diet, conveyance and attendant charges 15,000/- Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 50,000/- Total 1,25,397/- Rounded off- 1,26,000/- Amount awarded by Tribunal 50,000/- Enhancement 75,397 Rounded off- 76,000/- 23. Undisputedly, respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner. Therefore, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28323 MFA No. 808 of 2014 claimant is entitled to interest on the compensation amount at @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. 24. This appeal is filed after delay of 508 days and while allowing the said application it was ordered that if the claimant is entitled for enhancement, he is not entitled to interest for the delayed period. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled for the compensation for the delayed period. 25. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 2nd April 2012, passed in MVC.No.5770/2010 by the Motor Addicent Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, at Bangalore, is modified. iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.76,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28323 MFA No. 808 of 2014 realization excluding delayed period of 508 days in filing the appeal. iv) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severely are liable to pay the same. v) Respondent No.1 being Insurance Company shall deposit the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the amount enhanced by this Court, within a period of six weeks from the date of award. vi) The enhanced amount with interest shall be released in favour of the claimant, on due identification. ix) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4