- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27117 MFA No. 3099 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3099/2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALORE THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, 44/45 RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560025 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.S.UMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHALINGA S/O LATE THANIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT SARAVU THOTA PADRE POST, KASARGOD TALUK-671552 KERALA STATE. 2. MR. MULIYA KESHAVAYYA, S/O M.SHYAM BHAT, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 2-34, MULLIYA FARM HOUSE, DEREBAIL, KONCHADI, MANGALORE, Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27117 MFA No. 3099 of 2015 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O.SHIVARAM BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1211/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALORE, D.K., 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 insurer (respondent No.2) challenging the judgment and award dated 24th November 2014, passed by the III Addl.Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Mangauru, D.K., (for short `Tribunal), in MVC.No.1211/2013. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27117 MFA No. 3099 of 2015 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 09.02.2013, at about 11.15 a.m., claimant was waiting for jeep of respondent No.1 by the side of the road near Akasha Bhavan, Mangaluru. The driver of the said jeep bearing registration No.CTA-3111, drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. As a result, claimant sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment as an inpatient in A.J.Hospital, Mangaluru, from 09.02.2013 to 01.03.2013 and thereafter, took rest for about three months and taken follow-up treatment. He has spent more than Rs.90,000/- towards medical expenses. He was aged 63 years at the time of the accident and working as a collie and plucking the coconuts and earning Rs.500/- per day. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability, which is affecting his earning capacity. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.6 lakhs. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27117 MFA No. 3099 of 2015 4. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The respondent No.2-insurer in its written statement, denied the contentions of the claim petitioner, denied the accident and also denied its liability to pay the compensation. It has further stated that, it was an act policy, therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. The claimant to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and marked 8 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-8. The respondent No.2 has not led any oral evidence and marked one document as Ex.R-1. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, awarded the following amount of compensation : - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27117 MFA No. 3099 of 2015 Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and suffering 47,000/- Attendant, food and extract nourishment and conveyance charges 7,000/- Medical expenses 1,60,000/- 12,000/- Loss of income during treatment period and loss of amenities 10,000/- Future medical expenses 10,000/- Total 2,46,000/- 8. The insurer challenged the said impugned judgment and award on two grounds, one is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and second one is that, the claimant played fraud on the Court as the accident took place on 08.02.2013, but, he created a scene that accident took place on 09.02.2013. The appellant has filed IA.No.3/2015 under Order LXI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC, alongwith true - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27117 MFA No. 3099 of 2015 copies of medical records from A.J. Hospital and Research Centre, Mangaluru. 9. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both side on main appeal and IA.No.3/2015. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer vehemently contended that, no accident occurred by the alleged vehicle on 09.02.2013. The medical records produced along with IA.No.3/2015 shows that accident occurred on 08.02.2013. Hence, false case was filed by the claimant to get compensation from the insurer. In page No.2 (running page No.37), the date of incident is mentioned as `08.02.2013', which clearly indicates that accident was not occurred on 09.02.2013 as contended by the claimant. As such, it was a false case made out by the claimant. Perused the records carefully. No such defence was taken in the written statement of respondent No.2. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27117 MFA No. 3099 of 2015 In the cross-examination of PW-1, this point was not raised by the insurer though the matter was pending before the Tribunal nearly for a year. It was not in dispute that claimant had taken treatment in A.J.Hospital. Therefore, respondent No.2 had every opportunity to ascertain the date of the accident when the matter was pending before the Tribunal. 11. As per Ex.P-1 i.e., FIR, accident occurred on 09.02.2013 at 11.15 a.m. The complaint was lodged by the claimant when he was admitted in the hospital and his statement was recorded by the concerned police on 09.02.2013 at about 15.00 hours i.e., 3.00 p.m., within a period of three to four hours and FIR was registered. Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate. It also shows that the date of accident was 09.02.2013 and he was brought to the hospital on 09.02.2013 at 11.35 a.m. On conclusion of the investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet stating that driver of the said jeep - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27117 MFA No. 3099 of 2015 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident on 09.02.2013. 12. The documents produced by the appellant/insurer along with the application, which are copies of medical records, have been considered for discussion in light of the appellant’s contentions. The claimant/respondent has no objection to conside these documents. In the second page of the document, date and time is mentioned as `09.02.2013'. The writing style of the said document shows that a small line was put below the date. Subsequently, in the next page, at the end of page, the date is mentioned as `09.02.2013'. Thereafter, in page No.40, at the left side margin, date is specifically mentioned as 09.02.2013, which is clearly visible. Again there is a mentioned about the alleged history of accident by a vehicle on 09.02.2013. It appears that the writing of the number looks like 8`'. Again in the next page, it was mentioned as 09.02.2013. In the subsequent pages, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27117 MFA No. 3099 of 2015 dates of treatment are mentioned. Moreover, the said writings are not at the instance of victim of the accident. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant refers to running page No.54, wherein it is mentioned as `08.02.2013' and submitted that the same may be considered. 13. From the beginning, all in-patient records, till page No.53, dates are clearly visible as `09.02.2013'. In the end page, at page No.54, it is written as `08.02.2013'. It is not the statement of victim or the injured who has mentioned the date in the case history. Repeatedly, it is mentioned in the case history that accident occurred on 09.02.2013 and his statement was recorded in the hospital on 09.02.2013. Therefore, there has been some overwriting in the in-patient records or that the date was mentioned as `08.02.2013' in one of the pages of the said record and the same will not affect the credibility of the case made out by the claimant. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27117 MFA No. 3099 of 2015 14. Moreover, there must have been reasons for the claimant to mention the wrong date in the FIR. No such probable reasons are stated by the insurer. The complaint is not registered after a long delay from the occurrence of the accident. Under such circumstances, the contention of the insurer is not tenable. 15. The Central Government enacted the Insurance Companies Act with an intention that the victim of an accident must get just and reasonable compensation within a shortest point of time. Even insuring of the vehicle has been made compulsory, but not with an intention that insurance companies run in profits. With a noble object, the said enactment is passed and the Claims Tribunals were constituted. The insurance companies shall not try to see the materials with a microscopic eye to detect any possible discrepancy in the documents of the criminal case arising from the accident or medical records for having taken treatment to the injuries suffered in the accident. If there is a reasonable cause to suspect the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27117 MFA No. 3099 of 2015 case of the claimant regarding the accident, in such an event, one can understand that to prevent the fraud or abuse of process of the Court, such fraud should be brought to the notice of the Court. 16. In the present case, the claimant had no control over the hospital or the doctor. According to his case, he was admitted in the hospital for 20 days. He had placed these facts before the Tribunal through his claim petition. He himself stated in the claim petition that he was waiting to travel in the jeep belonging to respondent No.1, as he was working under respondent No.1, whenever he was called upon to pluck coconuts from the trees in the garden belonging to respondent No.1. Even a suggestion was made to PW-1 that when he tried to pluck the coconuts from the tree, he fell down and sustained injuries, that was denied by him. The said suggestion was without any basis. Similarly, the contention of insurer that accident occurred on 08.02.2013 is also without any basis. Moreover, as stated above, claimant has no control over - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27117 MFA No. 3099 of 2015 the persons who keeps the said record. No reasons are assigned as to why claimant would change the date of accident. The charge sheet was not challenged by both insured and insurer. Therefore, the contentions of the insurer/appellant is not tenable. Just to avoid its liability, the officers of the insurance company have unnecessarily filed this frivolous appeal and dragged the poor victim of the accident, who is a Senior Citizen, to this Court. 17. Looking at the materials available on record, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. It appears that due to poverty, the claimant could not examine the doctor to prove his disability though he has stated in his evidence about the disability suffered by him. For the above reasons, the appeal is devoid of merits. 18. For the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27117 MFA No. 3099 of 2015 (ii) The judgment and award dated 24th November 2014, passed by the III Addl.Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mangaluru, D.K., in MVC.No.1211/2013, is confirmed. (iii) Whatever amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. (iv) The documents produced by the appellant are considered. Accordingly, IA.No.3/2015 stands disposed of. Registry is directed to send back the records to the concerned Tribunal, with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38