- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010505662019 NC: 2026:KHC:38104 MFA No. 1007 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1007 OF 2020(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. K T MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O. THIMMAPPA, R/O. KALLESOMENAHALLI VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. 2. PRADEEP KUMAR K R AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O. RAJU J.K(DRIVER) R/O. KALKERE VILLAGE, NUGGEHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O. CHIKKEGOWDA, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010505662019 NC: 2026:KHC:38104 MFA No. 1007 of 2020 2. UMESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O. CHIKKEGOWDA, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. 3. SMT. PREMA H C AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS W/O. B K ASHOKA, R/O. B HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DIST …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR H.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 723/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 8,04,598/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010505662019 NC: 2026:KHC:38104 MFA No. 1007 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The owner and rider of the offending vehicle has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 17.04.2018 passed in M.V.C. No.723/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge, Channarayapatna (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.8,04,598/- with interest at 9% per annum. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 09.07.2014 at about 2.30 p.m., the father of the claimants, namely Chikkegowda, was walking on the Honnenahalli–Bagur– Oblapura Road. When he reached near Central Colony, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-13-W-9363, riding the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him. Due to the impact, Chikkegowda sustained grievous injuries and was initially shifted to the Government Hospital and thereafter to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru, for further treatment. Despite the treatment, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Consequently, the legal - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010505662019 NC: 2026:KHC:38104 MFA No. 1007 of 2020 representatives of the deceased Chikkegowda filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of his accidental death. 3. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition as stated supra. The Tribunal further fastened the entire liability to pay the compensation on the owner of the offending motorcycle, holding that the vehicle was not covered under a valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the owner and rider of the offending vehicle has preferred the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. Apart from urging several other contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants primarily contended that the Tribunal committed a error in assessing the age of the deceased at 54 years solely on the basis of the post-mortem report. He submitted that the appellant has filed an application dated 18.08.2025 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC seeking to - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010505662019 NC: 2026:KHC:38104 MFA No. 1007 of 2020 produce additional documents obtained under the Right to Information Act pertaining to the age of the deceased Chikkegowda. According to him, the said documents disclose that the deceased was aged about 69 years as on the date of the accident. He further placed reliance on the voter identity card of the deceased, wherein the year of birth is shown as 1938, which would indicate that the deceased was about 76 years of age on the date of the accident. In such circumstances, it is contended that the Tribunal was not justified in determining the age of the deceased at 54 years solely on the basis of the post-mortem report. 6. Notwithstanding the aforesaid contention, learned counsel also contended that, the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation under various heads without properly considering the age, avocation and other relevant aspects pertaining to the deceased. On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal or, in the alternative, the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after taking into account the additional documents produced by the appellants. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010505662019 NC: 2026:KHC:38104 MFA No. 1007 of 2020 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2–claimants by supporting the impugned judgment and award, contended that, the Tribunal upon due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. He further submitted that the claimants have also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC seeking to produce the Election Identity Card of the deceased Chikkegowda. According to him, the said document discloses that the deceased was aged about 36 years as on 01.01.1994 and, therefore, as on the date of the accident, he was about 56 years of age. In that view of the matter, it is contended that the Tribunal was justified in placing reliance on the post-mortem report while determining the age of the deceased. He further submitted that the Tribunal, after duly considering the age, avocation and other relevant factors, has awarded just and reasonable compensation. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010505662019 NC: 2026:KHC:38104 MFA No. 1007 of 2020 9. I have given my anxious consideration on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire materials and documents available on record. 10. As could be gathered from the records, the occurrence of the accident in question and the death of the deceased on account of the injuries sustained therein are not in dispute. It is also undisputed that the offending motorcycle was not covered under a valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident. The principal contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in determining the age of the deceased. 11. On a careful perusal of the documents produced by the claimants along with the application i.e., the application for Sandhya Suraksha pension, age proof documents and the Election Identity Card, it is evident that the said documents indicate the age of the deceased as about 69 years. On the other hand, the Election Identity Card produced by respondent Nos.1 and 2 discloses that the deceased was aged about 36 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010505662019 NC: 2026:KHC:38104 MFA No. 1007 of 2020 years as on 01.01.1994, which would indicate that he was about 56 years of age as on the date of the accident. 12. The Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased by placing reliance on the post-mortem report. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there exists a serious dispute with regard to the age of the deceased, which has a direct bearing on the computation of compensation, particularly with regard to the applicable multiplier, future prospects and other relevant factors. Therefore, the additional documents produced by the parties require proper appreciation and adjudication by the Tribunal before arriving at a definitive finding regarding the age of the deceased. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I.A. Nos.1/2025 and 2/2019 dated 18.08.2025 and 20.11.2019, respectively, filed by the appellant and I.A. No.1/2026 dated 20.07.2026 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 are disposed. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010505662019 NC: 2026:KHC:38104 MFA No. 1007 of 2020 after taking the additional documents on record. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 17.04.2018 passed in M.V.C.No.723/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge, Channarayapatna is set aside and matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. iii. Parties are at liberty to lead the additional evidence and the documents if any. iv. The Tribunal is also at liberty to frame additional issues if any, to decide the case. v. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 31.08.2026 without further notice. vi. The Tribunal is requested to dispose the claim petition at the earliest since the accident is of the year 2014. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010505662019 NC: 2026:KHC:38104 MFA No. 1007 of 2020 vii. Registry is directed to send back the TCR along with the certified copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal forth with. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2