HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8631 MFA No. 4828 of 2020 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4828 OF 2020(MV-I) BETWEEN: CHOLAMANDALAM MS. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT NO.4, 6TH FLOOR, “GOLDEN HEIGHTS”, COMPLEX, 59TH ‘C’ CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, RAJAJI NAGAR, 4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MURALIDHARA.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NANDA KISHORE YADAV S/O. RAMLAL YADAV, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT C/O. RAJAPPA, CHOKKAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN-562 114. PERMANENTLY R/AT MADHOPUR, CHANRWA (CHANDCHAURA), SARAN, BIHAR-841 204. 2. SRI. R.MOHAN S/O. RENU, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO. 370, THANDAMPATTU, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8631 MFA No. 4828 of 2020 - 2 - ARASAN KANNI POST, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU-606 703. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KALPANA.P.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 7132/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 7,38,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION FROM RESPONDENTS. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal seeks to challenge a Judgment and Award dated 05.02.2020 in M.V.C.No.7132/2017 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”). By the Impugned Award, respondent No.1/claimant has been awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.7,38,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8631 MFA No. 4828 of 2020 - 3 - annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, by the learned Tribunal. 2. On the last date of hearing, this Court had granted an adjournment to the respondents at their request. Despite the adjournment granted, none appears for the respondents. Given the pendency of the matter and the fact that stay of proceedings was granted by this Court on 20.04.2022, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the matter today. 3. The brief facts are that, on 14.11.2017, at about 7.30 P.M., respondent No.1/claimant was riding a motor cycle near Chokkahalli Gate, Chinthamani-Hosakote Road, Bangalore District. At that time, the driver of the Lorry bearing registration No.TN-34-J-5142, driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner collided with the motor cycle of the respondent No.1/claimant. Due to collision, the respondent No.1/claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Silicon City Hospital, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8631 MFA No. 4828 of 2020 - 4 - Hosakote, Bangalore. The respondent No.1/claimant was thereafter shifted to Sai Ambika Hospital, Bangalore, where he took treatment for a period of seven days as an in-patient and he has suffered several injuries. A claim petition was filed by the respondent No.1/claimant stating that earlier he was working as a helper at KIADB Area, Pillagumpa, Hosakote and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. However, due to injuries, he lost his earning capacity and also suffered permanent disability. 4.1. An FIR was registered against the driver of the Lorry and a case was filed being C.R.No.104/2017. Although notices were issued by the learned Tribunal, the owner of the Lorry did not present himself and was proceeded with ex-parte. The claim petition was only contested by the appellant/Insurance Company. Several grounds were taken by the appellant/Insurance Company including the non-involvement of the Lorry bearing registration No.TN- 34-J-5142. In addition, the ground of delay in filing the complaint was also taken. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8631 MFA No. 4828 of 2020 - 5 - 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained injuries due to RTA alleged to have been occurred on 14.11.2017 about 7.30 p.m.. near Chokkahalli Gate, Chinthamni, Hosakote Main Road, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru District, due to the rash and negligent manner driving of the driver of the Lorry, bearing Reg.No.bearing Reg.No.TN-34-J-5142? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. What Order or Award?” 6. Respondent No.1-claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and filed documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. He also examined Medical Record Technician as P.W.2 and the doctor as P.W.3. An eyewitness was examined by him as P.W.4. The appellant/Insurance Company examined its Manager as R.W.1. Based on the evidence between the parties, the learned Tribunal found that the documents produced by respondent No.1/claimant were sufficient to show the involvement of the vehicle. In addition, the amounts were awarded for medical expenses and loss of income during HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8631 MFA No. 4828 of 2020 - 6 - the period of treatment. The amounts were also awarded for non-pecuniary heads as follows: Sl.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.) 1 Pain and sufferings 50,000/- 2 Medical expenses 3,23,000/- 3 Loss of income during laid up period 50,000/- 4 Disability 2,45,000/- 5 Towards food, nourishment and attendant charges 10,000/- 6 Loss of amenities and happiness 40,000/- 7 Future medical expenses 20,000/- Total Rs.7,38,000/- 6.1. Learned Tribunal found that since there was no breach of insurance policy, the liability was accorded to the appellant/Insurance company. 7. As stated above, the respondents have chosen to remain absent before this Court and have not complied with the order dated 12.01.2026. 7.1. The issues that arise before this Court are: (i) Whether the Impugned Award of the learned Tribunal fastening liability on the appellant/ Insurance Company calls for interference by this Court? (ii)Whether the accident was in fact caused by the offending vehicle? HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8631 MFA No. 4828 of 2020 - 7 - 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company on the other hand has contended that the appellant/Insurance Company had confronted the witness with a Medico Legal Record (R.W.1) and in terms of this report, there is no involvement of the vehicle. He further submits that the report stated that the rider of the vehicle had fallen down and thus, the offending vehicle (Lorry) was not involved. The learned counsel in addition contends that similar contention was raised before the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal has not correctly examined this contention and has accorded the liability on the Insurance Company. 9. This Court has perused the record. The only ground for challenge taken by the appellant before this Court on the non-involvement of the vehicle, was taken by him before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal examined this ground and found that respondent No.1/claimant did not fall from his bike. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8631 MFA No. 4828 of 2020 - 8 - 10. An examination of the evidence before this court however, shows that the accident is not in dispute given the evidence produced by the respondent No.1/claimant. The learned Tribunal also found that the MLC did not contain complete details. However, the documents produced by the officer including the fine paid by the driver of the Lorry before the Criminal Court is sufficient for involvement of the vehicle. 11. This Court has also examined Ex.R1 which is the MLC extract. This document is dated 14.11.2017 and sets out the following: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8631 MFA No. 4828 of 2020 - 9 - 12. In addition, this Court has also examined Ex.P1 (FIR), statement made by Nandakishore Yadav, rider of the vehicle as PW-1, Mahazar (Ex.P3) and IMV report (Ex.P4). All these documents including IMV report shows the involvement of two vehicles, firstly, bike and secondly the charge sheet. The documents clearly mention the fact that Lorry bearing registration No.TN-34 was involved in the accident. IMV report also sets out the damage caused to the Lorry in terms of the accident. 13. In addition to his own evidence, the evidence of PW.4, the eyewitness to the accident was also placed on record. The eyewitness/Karan Kumar who was also the pillion rider deposed before the learned Tribunal and affirmed the involvement of the vehicle and the fact that it was driven in a rash and negligent manner. “2. I submit that, on 14.11.2017, at about 7.30 PM. I was going as a pilion rider and Nanda Kishore Yadav as a rider in a Motor Cycle, near Chokkahalli Gate, Chinthamani-Hosakote Main Road, Hosakote-Tą, Bangalore-Dist, very carefully, cautiously and observing traffic rules, at that time all of a sudden a Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-34-J-5142, driving by its HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8631 MFA No. 4828 of 2020 - 10 - driver at high speed in a rash & negligent manner and dashed against to Nanda Kishore Yadav, me and motor cycle. Due to impact we fell down on the road I sustained simple injuries rider Nanda Kishore Yadav sustained severe Head injuries and other injuries all over the body. After that Nanda Kishore Yadav has been unconscious & shifted to Silicon City Hospital, Hosakote, then shifted to Sai Ambika Hospital, Bangalore, where he was taken treatment as an in-patient and I also taken treatment at Pvt. Hospital on OPD Basis. 3. I further submits that, this accident was occurred due to sole rash and negligent high speed driving of the Lorry bearing Reg No.TN-34-J-5142, by its driver.” [Emphasis Supplied] 14. Clearly, there is overwhelming evidence about the involvement of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal has also examined this contention and given a finding that the Lorry driver/owner did not appear before the learned Tribunal and Insurance Company also given no evidence in support of its contention in the following manner. “17. Admittedly, after the accident the petitioner was unconscious and another pillion rider also sustained injuries. During the cross-examination they deposed they have not given information to the doctor with regard to the accident. After the accident the PW.2 also gone to his native place as per his evidence. Moreover, the petitioner and the pillion rider are native of the Bihar state. Hence, in view of lack of Information, the hospital authority may written as fall from the bike. Admittedly, the petitioner was fall from the bike due to the impact of the accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, the petitioner riding the bike at the time of HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8631 MFA No. 4828 of 2020 - 11 - accident. Since, the lorry dashed to the bike consequently, the petitioner fall from the bike and in the MLC also it is mentioned as H/O RTA fall from bike and it is also clear that due to lack of information in the MLC mentioned as such. It is also pertaining to note that, in MLC it is not mentioned as self fall or skid and fall himself from the bike. After he get conscious the petitioner given the statement before the doctor and immediately FIR was registered against the driver of the lorry. After the investigation also the I0 filed the charge sheet against the driver of the lorry for the offence punishable u/s 279 & 338 of IPC. 18. In spite of serious allegation made by the respondent No.2 with regard to the involvement of the offending vehicle, the respondent has not chosen to examine the driver of the lorry or IO to prove false implication of the lorry as alleged by them. Except confronted the MLC, the respondent has not made any attempt to examine the author of Ex.R1. Except, evidence of its official and insurance policy the respondent not chosen to produce any other oral or documentary evidence. Even not chosen to produce their internal investigation report. Mere, mentioned in MLC as H/O RTA fall from bike itself is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the lorry was not involved in the accident, in the presence of several police documents. The documents produced by the petitioner ie., statement, FIR, mahazar, IMV report, indemnity bond and fine receipt paid by the driver of the lorry before the Criminal Court clearly goes to show the involvement of the offending lorry. To rebut the said documents the petitioner has not produced any document., Moreover, the petitioner [‘sic’] respondent also examined PW.4/eye witness and in his evidence he clearly deposed the involvement of the lorry. The evidence of PW. 1 & 4 also discloses the involvement of the lorry. Except. Ex.R1 nothing has been placed by the respondent. In the absence of rebuttal evidence from the side of respondent, inference has to be drawn against the driver of the lorry that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of driver of the lorry. 19. From the evidence of the PW.1 and 4 coupled with the police documents it is clear that the accident occurred due HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8631 MFA No. 4828 of 2020 - 12 - to the rash and negligence of the driving of the driver of the Lorry. So, looking to these facts, this tribunal is of the opinion that, the accident is caused solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry. Hence, this tribunal answer Issue No. I in the Affirmative.” [Emphasis Supplied] 15. In view of the overwhelming evidence placed on record by the respondent No.1/claimant, this Court is unable to disagree with the finding of the learned Tribunal. No challenge has been made to the compensation awarded. 16. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN/BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA