- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25453 MFA No. 7087 of 2014 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. 7087 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., SUBHASH SQUARE, HASSAN, NOW REPRESENTED BY M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFICE, SECOND FLOOR, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-580 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY... …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. INDRA W/O SRI. THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS; DASARAKOPPAL VILLALGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. SRI. VENKATESHMURTHY S/O SRI. VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, THEJUR ROAD, Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25453 MFA No. 7087 of 2014 CHIKKAONDAGULA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHETAN B, 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:04.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.463/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,86,900/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. ON Rs.1,61,900/- (EXCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. 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 Insurance Company (respondent No.2) challenging the judgment and award dated 4th August 2014, passed by the learned II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Hassan, (for short `Tribunal), in MVC.No.463/2013. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25453 MFA No. 7087 of 2014 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 06.02.2013, at about 6.00 p.m., claimant was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 13-R-4870, from Dasarakoppal to Uddur village and her brother was riding the said motorcycle. On the way, they met with an accident due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-53-J-2572 by its rider. As a result, claimant sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula. She took treatment as an inpatient in the hospital and she has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, she prayed to award compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. 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 denied the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25453 MFA No. 7087 of 2014 contentions of the claim petitioner and also denied its liability to pay the compensation. It prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. The claimant to prove her case, examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 19 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-19. The respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked Exs.R-1 to R-9. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the offending motorcycle by its rider. The Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant as 40 years, took her income as Rs.3,500/- per month, applied the multiplier of `15', assessed the disability at 12% to the whole body and awarded the following amount of compensation and directed the respondent No.2 to pay the same : - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25453 MFA No. 7087 of 2014 Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and agony 30,000/- Medical expenses, attendant, food, diet, nourishment, conveyance etc., 43,800/- Future medical expenses 25,000/- Loss of income during treatment period 7,500/- Loss of income on account of permanent disability 75,600/- Loss of discomfort, frustration and fun etc., 5,000/- Total 1,86,900/- Same is challenged by the insurer in this appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and learned counsel for respondent No.1. 9. From rival contentions of the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is: " Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident took place on 06.02.2013 at around 6:00 p.m., involving the vehicle bearing registration - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25453 MFA No. 7087 of 2014 No. KA-53-J-2572, and that the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident? " 10. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer contended that said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case. PW-1, in her cross-examination, was unable to state the registration number of the offending motorcycle. Additionally, there was a delay of one day in filing the complaint, which suggests that, after discussions and deliberations—and in collusion with respondent No.1—the said vehicle was falsely implicated. He further contended that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side, and that the compensation awarded under other heads is also excessive. Therefore, prayed to recalculate the same. 11. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the Tribunal had duly considered these aspects and rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the offending motorcycle, and accordingly awarded just compensation. Due to poverty, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25453 MFA No. 7087 of 2014 the claimant was unable to file the appeal. The notional income of the claimant taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Even the compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I do not find any reasons assigned by the appellant as tenable. The accident occurred at around 6.00 p.m. and complaint was filed on the next date around 4.00 p.m. It is true that PW-1 was unable to give the registration number of the said vehicle in her cross-examination. In the accident, she had sustained fracture of both the bones of right leg and she was admitted as an inpatient in the hospital. Under these circumstances, the chances of involving another vehicle in the incident is not probable. Even in the FIR, the vehicle number is mentioned. Considering these facts, the contention of the appellant that the vehicle was falsely implicated in this case is not tenable. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25453 MFA No. 7087 of 2014 13. The claimant examined the doctor as PW-2, who assessed the disability of the claimant as 24% to the right lower limb. Normally, when it is converted to the whole body, it would be 1/3rd. In this case, it may be 8% to the whole body. Looking at the injuries sustained by the claimant and other facts, the Tribunal has taken the permanent disability to the whole body as 12%. 14. It is also pertinent to note that accident occurred during the year 2013. Even if this Court considers the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income of the claimant would be Rs.8,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has taken her income as Rs.3,500/- per month. The doctor has stated that she has to undergo another surgery for removal of the implants. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads appears to be on the lower side. Since the claimant has not filed any appeal, the same cannot be re-considered at this juncture. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25453 MFA No. 7087 of 2014 15. Looking at all these facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation awarded is not exorbitant. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to recalculate the compensation under the head `loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability' only on the basis of assessing the permanent disability to a higher percentage. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the above point is answered in the Negative and proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 4th August 2014, passed by the II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hassan, in MVC.No.463/2013, is confirmed. (iii) Whatever amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25453 MFA No. 7087 of 2014 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.: 14