- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30707 MFA No. 2385 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2385/2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI SATISH T, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, CPC NO. 1405, AGUMBE POLICE STATION, R/O 1ST CROSS, II MAIN, KASHIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRASHANTH H S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAGAR ROAD, OPPOSITE TO MC GENN HOSPITAL, SHIVAMOGGA, OWNER OF TEMPO TRAVELLER. 2. SRI KIRAN MORE, S/O HANUMANTHA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, CPC NO. 1320, AGUMBE ANS CROSS, THIRTHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA-577 432. 3. KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, MOTOR BRANCH, V.V. TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30707 MFA No. 2385 of 2016 BY ITS DIRECTOR, POLICY NO. 1210005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.A. MACHAKANUR, AGA FOR R1 & R3, R2-NOTICE IS D/W, V/O DTD: 30.08.2023) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 25.05.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1464/10 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT-6, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 25.05.2012 passed by the Court of I Additional Senor Civil Judge and MACT-VI, Shivamogga in MVC No.1464/2010. 2. The injured claimant filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.8,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.81,179/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant has preferred this appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30707 MFA No. 2385 of 2016 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that though the appellant examined P.W.2, the said evidence was not at all considered by the Tribunal. The appellant filed certified copy of deposition of P.W.2, which is a translated copy. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the appellant was a police constable met with an accident in the year 2010. The appellant sustained disability and the disability certificate was issued in his favour. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended stated that the appellant was promoted as Head Constable. Therefore, contended that the parties shall be permitted to adduce evidence. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides. 5. There is no dispute regarding the fact that P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and cross examined before the Tribunal, but the judgment was given without considering the said evidence. Even in the list of witnesses, the name of P.W.2 was not mentioned. It seems that the said deposition was not enclosed to the file and as such, it was not considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to remand the matter to the Tribunal to consider the evidence of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30707 MFA No. 2385 of 2016 P.W.2, and also to permit both the parties to adduce any further evidence on their behalf. 6. Accordingly, I pass the following order: (i) The appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded with a direction to the Tribunal to consider the evidence of P.W.2. (ii) The Tribunal shall permit all the parties to adduce any further evidence. (iii) The Tribunal is directed to consider the entire evidence and the arguments of both side and dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv) Registry is directed to send the record within ten days from the date of this order. (v) Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 01.09.2025. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34