- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45958 MFA No. 5307 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5307 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. YOGANANDA S/O MR BASAVARAJA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS BAR SUPLYER WORK SHRAVANAGERE HIRIYUR TALUK-572143 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. MALLESHWARAIAH S/O MR MALLANNA MAJOR SHRAVANAGERE HIRIYUR TALUK-572143 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY M M BRANCH OFFICE B M COMPLEX LAKSHMI BAZAR CHITRADURGA-577501 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.757/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45958 MFA No. 5307 of 2020 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 being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 05.01.2018, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hiriyur (for short 'Tribunal'), in MVC No.757/2015, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Though this appeal is slated for hearing on admission, with the consent of learned Advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 04.11.2013, while the petitioner was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-16-W-4456, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45958 MFA No. 5307 of 2020 said vehicle by its rider. As a result, he sustained fractures, injuries, and has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed for an award of compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and respondent No.2 appeared before the Tribunal and denied the averments made in the petition and denied its liability to pay compensation. With these reasons, respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The Tribunal recorded evidence. 7. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, answered Issue No.1 in the negative and Issue No.2, partly in the affirmative. It has awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,11,062/- and directed respondent No.1, owner of the vehicle, to pay the said amount. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45958 MFA No. 5307 of 2020 Tribunal found that said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case in order to claim compensation from the insurer of the vehicle. Hence, it has directed owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation and exonerated the insurer. 8. Heard the arguments on both sides. 9. The incident alleged to have occurred on 04.11.2013. Immediately after the incident, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Hiryur and thereafter, he was shifted to the Basaveshwara Hospital at Hiryur. An MLC was registered at the Government Hospital, Hiriyur, which has been produced by the respondent at Ex.R-2. However, the said MLC does not reveal any particulars except 'RTA'. The Medical Officer even not reported the same to nearest Police Station. No witness was examined in this regard. Hence, it is doubtful. For higher treatment, he was shifted to Basaveshwara Hospital on the very same day. 10. The claimant has not produced any records to show that in Basaveshwara Hospital, he had reported that he sustained injury in a vehicle accident. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45958 MFA No. 5307 of 2020 Undisputedly, both hospitals had not sent intimation to the nearest police station about the incident. It is not clear as to whether rider of the said motorcycle had also sustained injuries. The complaint was filed two days after the incident and complainant has not given any reasons for not filing the complaint immediately after the incident. It is not necessary that he himself should go to the Police Station to lodge a complaint, even if it was reported to the concerned Medical Officer regarding history of injuries and particulars of the accident, the Doctor/hospital would have reported the same to the Police Station. In addition to that, during the cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that the complaint was given to the police after two days, after due deliberation. This fact was highlighted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. The Tribunal discussed in this regard at length. Hence, there are no materials on record to interfere in the finding of the Tribunal. It was also duty of respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle to appear and disclose true facts. He remained ex-parte. He is best person to explain about accident. The Tribunal on the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45958 MFA No. 5307 of 2020 basis of materials held that both owner and claimant joined their hands to claim compensation by implicating the offending vehicle from insurer. Hence, it order that owner of the vehicle shall deposit the same. 11. With regard to the enhancement of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/-. Comparing to the notional income, as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, it is taken as Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, taking the income as Rs.8,000/- and considering the other factors already assessed by the Tribunal. The compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability can be decided. 12. Looking to the contentions of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, which requires to be enhanced. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to the following amount of compensation. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45958 MFA No. 5307 of 2020 Sl. No. Heads Amount in (Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering 40,000/- 2. Medical expenses 46,662/- 3. Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability (8,000x12x18x13%) 2,24,640/- 4. Special rate, conventional allowance and attendant charges 20,000/- 5. Loss of amenities 25,000/- Total: 3,56,302/- LESS Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 2,11,062/- Enhanced compensation. 1,45,240/- 13. The Tribunal held that said vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident and therefore, directed the owner of the vehicle shall pay the compensation. There are no reasons to disturb the said findings. Accordingly, respondent No.1 shall pay the enhanced compensation amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45958 MFA No. 5307 of 2020 14. For the reasons stated above, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 05.01.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hiriyur (for short 'Tribunal'), in MVC No.757/2015, stands modified; iii) The claimant is entitled to enhancement of Rs.1,45,240/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization, excluding the delayed period of 681 days in filing the appeal. iv) The respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The remaining portion of the order is passed by the Tribunal is not in dispute or not disturbed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45958 MFA No. 5307 of 2020 vi) The Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10