- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34438 MFA No. 4529 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 4539 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4529 OF 2016 (MV-DM) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4539 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN MFA No.4529/2016 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NEW MUSLIM HOSTEL BUILDING, OPP FIRE BRIGADE SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE THROUGH ITS BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS BENGALURU-560025 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. G.K. NAGENDRA S/O. LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. NO. 106, KURUBARAGERI VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET TOWN - 571111 Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34438 MFA No. 4529 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 4539 of 2016 2. ANANDKUMAR MAJOR IN AGE SHIVAPADMAM HOUSE R/O NELLIKODE POST, CALICUT KERALA STATE-673001. …RESPONDENTS (R1 & R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.64/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, CHAMARAJANAGAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,70,400/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION AND ETC. IN MFA NO.4539/2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, NEW MUSLIM HOSTEL BUILDING, OPP FIRE BRIGADE, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE. THROUGH ITS BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU - 560025. REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34438 MFA No. 4529 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 4539 of 2016 AND: 1. VISHWANATH.G.N. S/O. G.K. NAGENDRA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O NO.106, KURUBARAGERI VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET TOWN-571111. 2. ANANDKUMAR MAJOR IN AGE, SHIVAPADMAM HOUSE, R/O. NELLIKODE POST, CALICUT, KERALA STATE - 673001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUMANTH L BHARADWAJ, ADV. FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 04.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.61/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, CHAMARAJANAGAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.49,040/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34438 MFA No. 4529 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 4539 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT The common award was passed in MVC.No.61/2013 and MVC.No.64/2013 dated 04.03.2016 by the Principal District Judge, Member, MACT, Chamarajanagar. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company. Though respondents are served, they did not turn up. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. MFA.No.4529/2016 is filed by the insurance company aggrieved by the order passed in MVC.No.64/2013. The said MVC is filed for damages caused to the Bus. The Tribunal considering entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.1,70,400/-. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the insurance company mainly contending that the petitioner has not produced the documents to prove that when and from whom he purchased the Mahindra Zylo Car bearing No.KA-19-M-1469 and he has not produced the receipt or invoice to show that for what amount he purchased the said Car. Further, he has not proved the model and condition of the Car as on the date of accident and has not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34438 MFA No. 4529 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 4539 of 2016 produced approved Surveyor’s Report. The petitioner has also not produced and proved the spare parts purchased and replaced and has not examined the mechanic who repaired the Car and not mentioned the name of the garage in which it was repaired and the period taken for its repair and has not produced the bill or receipt for having paid charges towards the repair of the Car. There is no evidence to prove the extent of damage caused to the Car and the amount spent for repair. But the Tribunal granted Rs.2,00,000/- under the head ‘Repair Charges’ and it is to be set aside and the Tribunal also granted Rs.5,000/- under the head 'preparation of estimate' and it is not sustainable. Petitioner has not examined owner of the taxi which was hired during the period of repair of the Car and has not produced the receipt to prove the amount of hire paid towards the taxi charges but still Rs.5,000/- was granted towards 'hire charges'. It is further stated that as per Spot Sketch-Ex.R1 and Mahazar-Ex.P3, the Zylo Car was proceeding from Sultahn Bathery side to Gundlupet side and dashed the insured lorry. The damages are noted in Ex.P4-IMV Report, the driver of the Car was responsible for causing the accident and the driver of the lorry contributed for causing the accident to an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34438 MFA No. 4529 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 4539 of 2016 extent of 80%. In fact the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Zylo Car. Therefore, requested to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 4. The manner of accident shows that on 14.01.2013, while the petitioner was driving Mahindra Zylo Car bearing Reg.No.KA-49-M-1469 slowly and cautiously, a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-11-T-0018 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to Mahindra Zylo Car. Mahindra Zylo sustained extensive damages beyond repair. The petitioner got prepared the estimate from Mahindra and Mahindra show room, industrial area, Hebbal, Mysore, for an amount of Rs.6,91,330/-. The petitioner was using the Car for his own use, he spent Rs.20,000/- for towing the Car from the spot to police station, he has spent Rs.10,000/- for preparing the estimate. On account of the damage caused to the car, the petitioner had engaged private taxi and he has spent Rs.50,000/- towards conveyance charges and thus requested the Court to grant to Rs.8,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34438 MFA No. 4529 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 4539 of 2016 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 before the Tribunal filed objections stating that the accident occurred due to head on collusion between two vehicles and as per IMV report, Mahindra Zylo Car was on wrong side. Therefore, there is contributory negligence from the drivers of the both the vehicles. Therefore, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further stated that the Lorry is insured with the insurance company and requested the Court to dismiss the case against respondent No.2. 6. A perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal shows that as per Ex.P4-IMV Report, the Mahindra Zylo Car was extensively damaged. But he has not filed any receipt to show that he had got repaired the Car and had not surveyed the same through approved Surveyor. The Tribunal rightly observed all the factors but granted an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards repair charges. Learned counsel for the appellant herein contended that without any basis, the said amount is granted and it is to be set aside. So also the Tribunal granted Rs.3,000/- towards towing charges as the said amount is admitted by him in the cross-examination. Though petitioner stated that he has spent Rs.10,000/- for preparing estimate but - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34438 MFA No. 4529 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 4539 of 2016 the said estimate is not produced before the Court. Even then the Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- for preparing the estimate. The petitioner-PW.1 admitted that he has taken taxi of one Puttaraju for two months and had paid hire charges of Rs.23,000/-. But the said Puttaraju has not been examined before the Court and hire charge receipts are not filed. It was observed that as Mahindra Zylo was damaged extensively and it requires atleast one month to get repair the same, as such hire charges at the rate of Rs.5,000/- was granted. 7. It is for the petitioner to file estimate of the damages and also receipts to show that he got repaired the vehicle and paid the amount. Apart from that he could have examined the relevant surveyor to prove the damages of the vehicle but he failed to do so. Therefore, this Court finds just and reasonable to grant Rs.3,000/- towards towing charges and Rs.5,000/- towards hiring charges i.e., Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.2,13,000/-. 8. Regarding contributory negligence, the Tribunal discussed at length and stated that spot sketch is not produced and there is curve on the spot while coming from Sultahn - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34438 MFA No. 4529 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 4539 of 2016 Bathery and the said Curve takes turn from south eastern side to north western side and also stated as per Ex.P3-Mahazar Lorry was capsized. PW.2 admitted the spot sketch as correct one. The Tribunal observed that as per Ex.P4-IMV report there was damage to the Lorry and held that there is contributory negligence of 20% on the part of the driver of the Car and 80% negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry. In view of the lengthy discussion of the Tribunal on the said aspect, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal. 9. In view of the above, appeal in MFA.No.4529/2016 is allowed-in-part. The insurance company is liable to deposit Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.2,13,000/-. The excess amount deposited by the insurance company is to be refunded to them. 10. MFA.No.4539/2016 is filed by the insurance company aggrieved by the compensation awarded to the claimant in MVC.No.61/2013. 11. The injured-claimant met with an accident on 14.01.2013 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.13,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34438 MFA No. 4529 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 4539 of 2016 The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record, granted total compensation of Rs.61,300/- and after deducting 20% towards contributory negligence, Rs.49,040/- was payable to the petitioner. As per Ex.P7, the petitioner has sustained four simple injuries and as per discharge summary-Ex.P8, the pain in the right shoulder did not subside. Therefore, one surgery was conducted over him in Cauvery Hospital, Mysore. But the Doctor who treated the petitioner has not been examined before the Court. As such, the Tribunal granted Rs.20,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferings’ and under Ex.P9, the petitioner has produced medical bills stating that he has spent Rs.33,226/- for his treatment. Hence, the Tribunal has granted Rs.33,300/- towards ‘medical expenses’. Further, the petitioner was inpatient for five days, therefore, the Tribunal granted Rs.1,000/- for food, extra nourishment and medical attendant and Rs.1,000/- was also granted towards Conveyance. It was stated that the petitioner was working as Manager in Bar at Sultahn Bathery Road and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and he was advised to take rest for a period of four months. The Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.6,000/- per month and granted loss of income only for one month. This Court finds no - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34438 MFA No. 4529 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 4539 of 2016 reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. It is stated that the insurance company has already deposited 50% of the compensation amount and they are directed to deposit the balance amount with interest within one month from the date of the order and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same along with interest accrued on it. Accordingly, appeal in MFA.No.4539/2016 is dismissed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38