- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25315 MFA No. 5553 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5553 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SUNIL KUMAR G S/O NAMBI G. AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.24, 6TH CROSS, DEVINAGAR, LATTEGALLAHALLI, R.M.V. EXTENSION POST, BANGALORE-94. EARLIER RA/T NO.E-39, 6TH CROSS, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BANGALORE NORTH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. D.O.4, NO.16, 2ND FLOOR, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, SHIVANANDA CIRCLE, BANGALORE- 560 001. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. MUNIYAPPA K. S/O LATE KADHIRAPPA MAJOR R/AT MARANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKJALA HOBLI & POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562 157. (R-2 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.02.2023) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25315 MFA No. 5553 of 2015 3. MR. RAJANNA M. S/O MUNIYAPPA K. RA/T MARANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKJALA HOBLI & POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562 157. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2(A)-RAJANNA M - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED, R2-VIDE ORDER DATED 20.02.2023, R2 DELETED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.3.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.8319/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, 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 claimants against the judgment and award dated 28.03.2015 passed by the XIX Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, (for short 'the Tribunal) in MVC.No.8319/2011. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25315 MFA No. 5553 of 2015 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.09.2011, at about 10:00 a.m., when the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-04-HG-1037 near Nagashettyhalli, a Maruti van bearing registration No. KA- 04-MJ-1458 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit his motorcycle. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment as inpatient at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, Bengaluru, and incurred medical expenses exceeding Rs. 60,000/-. He was about 23 years old at the time of the accident. He was engaged in a business and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 was the insurer, Respondent No.2 was the owner of the offending vehicle. After the accident respondent No.1 found that Respondent No.2 had passed away long prior to the accident. Hence Respondent No.1 is not liable to pay compensation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25315 MFA No. 5553 of 2015 Respondent No.2's son was brought on record as Respondent No.2(a). He filed objections to the claim petition, denying the allegations made by the claimant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues. 6. In order to prove his case, the claimant examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and produced 10 documents, marked as Exs. P-1 to P-10. The respondent examined one witness as RW-1 and marked as Exs. R-1 to R-4. 7. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.1,45,981/-. It held that the purchaser of the insurance policy (Respondent No.2) had passed away long before the date of the accident, and that the policy was purchased in the name of the deceased. Therefore, the insurer (Respondent No.1) was absolved of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25315 MFA No. 5553 of 2015 its liability to pay the compensation. The Tribunal assessed the claimant’s age as 23 years, his monthly income at Rs.4,000/-, determined the disability at 5% to the whole body, applied the multiplier of ‘18’, and awarded the following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and agony 36,000 Medical expenses 30,781 Loss of income (4,000x3) 12,000 Disability 43,200 Food and nourishment 15,000 Attendant charges 9,000 Total Rs.1,45,981/- 8. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal on two grounds: firstly, the compensation awarded is inadequate; and secondly, the Tribunal erred in absolving the insurer's liability to pay compensation without justifiable reasons. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25315 MFA No. 5553 of 2015 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that PW-1 and PW-2 have stated in their evidence that the claimant sustained a fracture of the superior and inferior pubic rami on the right side, abrasions over the dorsal aspect of the left foot, and abrasions on the right leg, ankle, and foot. He underwent conservative treatment. According to the evidence of PW- 2, the claimant is suffering from 7% permanent disability to the whole body and has difficulty in movement of the lower limb. In view of this, the Tribunal rightly assessed the disability at 5%, which does not require interference by this Court. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/-, which is on the lower side. The accident occurred in the year 2011. Following the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income of the claimant is taken as Rs.6,500/- per month. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, and considering the claimant's age as 23 years, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25315 MFA No. 5553 of 2015 appropriate multiplier would be ‘18’. Furthermore, the compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side , which needs enhancement. 11. Accordingly, following amount of compensation is awarded: Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 40,000 Medical expenses 30,781 Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.6,500x3) 19,500 Loss of future earning capacity due to disability (Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 18x 5%) 70,200 Attendant charges, Special diet, conveyance charges 25,000 Loss of amenities 25,000 Total Rs.2,10,481/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement- Rs.1,45,981/- Rs. 64,500/- 12. The main contention of respondent No.1 in its written statement, as well as during arguments, is that when notice was issued to respondent No.2 (now deceased), his son responded stating that Muniyappa (the insured) had died prior to the accident, and due to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25315 MFA No. 5553 of 2015 difficulties in changing the registration certificate (RC), he continued to purchase insurance policy in Muniyappa’s name, which was still recorded in the RC. This letter was also produced by the respondent. However, the contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured does not affect the rights of third parties. Respondent No.2(a) deliberately or intentionally purchased the insurance policy in his father's name and paid the premium. As rightly contended by the appellant, the insurer ought to have verified the records before issuing the policy and cannot raise objections after the occurrence of the accident. The policy was purchased in 2010, while the accident occurred in 2011. At that time, there was a practice of filling physical application forms to purchase policy of insurance. It appears that the insurer did not consider these aspects under Sections 150 or 151 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Once the policy of insurance was issued for the said vehicle, and the accident occurred involving that vehicle, the insurer cannot escape liability on mere technical - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25315 MFA No. 5553 of 2015 grounds. The third party is not concerned with the internal contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company from its liability. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that Ex.P9 - certificate issued by M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, records the history of the accident as “a case alleged to have been injured due to a road traffic accident, hit by a lorry at Hebbal junction.” This fact was suggested to PW-1 during cross-examination, and Ex.P9 reflects the same. According to the respondent, this clearly indicates that the accident was not caused by the negligence of the offending car, but rather by another vehicle. Hence, the claimant is not entitled to compensation. 14. The accident occurred on 18.09.2011 at 10:00 a.m., and the complaint was lodged before the concerned police station on the same day at 1:00 p.m. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of PW-1 to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25315 MFA No. 5553 of 2015 show that he was falsely implicated offended car in the accident or he was manipulated the facts. Therefore, filing of the complaint within a short period of time, makes the possibility of falsely implicating the vehicle highly doubtful. Respondent No.2(a) seriously contested the case, and in his written statement, he did not deny the involvement of his vehicle. No evidence was led to show that he pleaded guilty in the criminal court merely to help the claimant obtain compensation. Furthermore, Respondent No.2 examined RW-1 as a witness, but in his testimony, there was no mention of Ex.P1 or any allegation of false implication of the vehicle in the claim petition. It appears that this line of defense was raised only during the examination of RW-1. Looking at the overall circumstances of the case, when there is no delay in lodging the complaint, the case of the claimant cannot be disbelieved solely on the basis of the contents of Ex.P9. 15. It is true that statements made before a Medical Officer at the initial stage have evidentiary value. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25315 MFA No. 5553 of 2015 However, whether a vehicle was falsely implicated must be determined based on the facts of each case. If there had been a delay in filing the complaint, it could raise a presumption of manipulation or collusion with the owner and driver of another vehicle. But in the present case, no such possibility is apparent. Therefore, on this ground alone, respondent No.1 cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation. 16. From the aforesaid discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 28.03.2015 passed by the XIX Additional Small Causes Judge, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-17) in MVC.No.8319/2011 is modified. iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.64,500/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25315 MFA No. 5553 of 2015 iv) The respondent No.1 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The remaining portion of the award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. vi) Amount enhanced is marginal, therefore, entire enhanced amount is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant on due identification. No order as to costs. 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 AG, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40