- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051212020 NC: 2026:KHC:37478 MFA No. 1266 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1266 OF 2020(MV-I) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE AT UNNATI ARCADE, 5/111 AND 6/112, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST BLOCK, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, (1ST MAIN ROAD), RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, M.G ROAD, BENGALURU-01. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GANGAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAERAIAH NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT PUTTAYYANA AGRAHARA VILLAGE SAKALDEVANAPURA POST, MADURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PERMANENT ADDRESS OF-DODDAMALUR VILLAGE AND POST KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. SINCE DEAD LRS OF THE DECEASED Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051212020 NC: 2026:KHC:37478 MFA No. 1266 of 2020 1(A) 1(B) ARE BROUGH ON RECORD AS PER THE ORDER DATED 05/03/2026 SMT. ERAMMA D/O LATE GANGAPPA W/O THIMAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.12/B, PUTTAIAHNA AGRAHARA SYAKALADEVANAPURA DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT SRI. GANGADHARA S/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.189, DODDAMALLUR KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADUGIRI TALUK-572 127 2. B ANJAN KUMAR S/O LATE BYLAPPA R/O DEVANNAPALYA VILLAGE, NO.25, DASANAPURA HOBLI AND POST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALORE-562162. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A&B), R2 - SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 12.09.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.5062/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE III-ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-17), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,57,552/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8 PERCENT P.A., (FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES DOES NOT CARRY ANY INTEREST) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051212020 NC: 2026:KHC:37478 MFA No. 1266 of 2020 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant - Insurance company has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 12.09.2019 passed in M.V.C No.5062/2017 by the XIX Addl. Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-17) [for brevity, "Tribunal"] 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of claim petition are that, on 04.03.2017 at about 7:30 p.m., the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-43-L-5171, accompanied by one Devaraju as the pillion rider, proceeding from Puttayyana Agrahara towards Madure (Kannasavadi), slowly and cautiously. When they reached near Isthur Palya Gate, adjacent to Gandaragulipura Colony, a Tempo Tata 407/31/CLB bearing registration No. KA-03-A-5666, allegedly driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the claimant's motorcycle. Owing to the impact of the collision, the claimant and the pillion rider - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051212020 NC: 2026:KHC:37478 MFA No. 1266 of 2020 were thrown onto the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Sapthagiri Hospital, Hesaraghatta Main Road, Bengaluru, where the claimant underwent inpatient treatment from 04.03.2017 to 21.03.2017. Thereafter, he was admitted to Rajamahal Vilas Hospital, Sanjayanagar, Bengaluru, from 19.07.2017 to 22.07.2017 for further treatment. 3. Subsequently, jurisdictional police registered a FIR against the rider of offending tempo bearing registration No.KA-03-A-5666 and, upon completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet against him for the offences arising out of the accident. Thereafter, the injured-claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. 4. In support of the claim petition, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and another 4 witnesses as PWs.2 to 5 and produced 29 documents, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P29. On behalf of the respondent–Insurance Company, its official was examined as RW.1 and produced two documents, which were marked as Exs.R1 and R2. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051212020 NC: 2026:KHC:37478 MFA No. 1266 of 2020 5. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. Aggrieved the same, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Pradeep. B, for the appellant and the learned counsel Sri. Vijaya Kumar. K, for respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(b) i.e. the legal heirs of the claimant-respondent No.1. 7. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company primarily contended that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in allowing the claim petition solely on the basis of the investigation records i.e., FIR, complaint and charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending Tempo bearing registration No. KA-03-A-5666. Placing reliance on Ex.R2 - Medico-Legal Register, he submitted that the history of the accident recorded therein states that the claimant was "hit by a two-wheeler at around 7.00 p.m. near Chikkamadurai." According to him, the said entry clearly demonstrates that the offending tempo was not involved in the accident and that its implication was an - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051212020 NC: 2026:KHC:37478 MFA No. 1266 of 2020 afterthought at the instance of the claimant in collusion with the jurisdictional police. 8. The learned counsel further contended that, although the FIR came to be registered immediately after the accident, the complainant was not an eyewitness to the occurrence. It was submitted that the complainant, being the brother-in-law of the pillion rider of the motorcycle, Devaraju, instead of proceeding to the hospital, went directly to the police station and lodged the complaint. According to the learned counsel, this circumstance casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the complaint as well as the FIR. 9. It is also contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding exorbitant compensation under various heads without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. It was further submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount, when the appropriate rate ought to have been 6% per annum. On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051212020 NC: 2026:KHC:37478 MFA No. 1266 of 2020 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(b) i.e. the legal heirs of the claimant, by supporting the impugned judgment and award, contended that the Tribunal, after careful consideration and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly passed a well-reasoned judgment and award, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that the contents of the complaint and FIR cannot be doubted, as the FIR was registered immediately after the accident at about 8:30 p.m. on 04.03.2017, whereas the accident occurred at about 7:20 p.m. He further submitted that the particulars of the offending Tempo were clearly mentioned in the complaint and FIR by the complainant. It was also contended that, after conducting a detailed investigation, the jurisdictional police have filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending tempo, which further corroborates the involvement of the said vehicle in the accident. 12. It is further contended that the Insurance Company has failed to examine the person who had accompanied the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051212020 NC: 2026:KHC:37478 MFA No. 1266 of 2020 injured to the hospital and who furnished the history of the accident before the hospital authorities. In the absence of such evidence, the appellant cannot rely upon the entries made in the Medico-Legal Register to dispute the involvement of the offending Tempo. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim petition and awarding compensation. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. I have given my anxious consideration on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(b) so also perused the entire materials and documents available on record. 14. As could be gathered from records, the occurrence of the accident dated 04.03.2017 at about 7:20 p.m. near Isthur Palya Gate, Gundaragulipura Colony, involving the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-43-L-5171 ridden by the claimant, is not in dispute. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, one Vishwanatha, who is the brother-in-law of the pillion rider, - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051212020 NC: 2026:KHC:37478 MFA No. 1266 of 2020 namely, Devaraju, lodged a complaint before the Doddabelavangala Police Station, based on which Crime No.35/2017 came to be registered. 15. On perusal of the complaint and FIR, it is evident that the accident was alleged to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo bearing registration No. KA-03-A-5666. The complaint was lodged at about 8:30 p.m., i.e., within 50 minutes from the time of the accident. Subsequently, a spot mahazar was drawn, and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the offending tempo. 16. No doubt, in Ex.R2–Medico-Legal Register, the history of assault is mentioned as "hit by a two-wheeler at around 7.00 p.m. near Chikkamadurai." However, the said information was furnished by one Thimmappa, who had accompanied the injured claimant to the hospital. Even as per the said history, the involvement of a two-wheeler in the accident is not disputed. Nevertheless, merely on the basis of the said entry, it cannot be presumed that the motorcycle ridden by Devaraju, on which the claimant was travelling as a - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051212020 NC: 2026:KHC:37478 MFA No. 1266 of 2020 pillion rider, had collided with another two-wheeler, as sought to be contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 17. In view of the specific averments made in the complaint, coupled with the fact that the registration number of the offending tempo was mentioned in the complaint as well as in the FIR at the earliest point of time, and further considering that the Insurance Company has failed to examine Thimmappa, who had furnished the history of the accident before the hospital authorities, the contention of the Insurance Company that the lodging of the complaint and registration of the FIR are doubtful cannot be accepted. The said aspect of the matter is dealt in detail by the Tribunal in paragraph No.19 of the judgment, which reads as under: "19. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 & 4 coupled with documents it is clear that the alleged accident was took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tempo. The Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued that as per Ex.R.2 MLC records, - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051212020 NC: 2026:KHC:37478 MFA No. 1266 of 2020 number of offending vehicle was noted in the top portion of the history of injury and same was implicated after thought. But the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 holds no water, because while perusing Ex.P1 FIR and complaint, it reveals that the alleged accident took place on 4.3.17 at about 7.20 p.m., complaint was lodged by complainant on the same day at about 8.30 p.m. by narrating the number of the vehicle and also noted that the tempo was involved in the accident. Further on the next day at about 8.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. Spot mahazar was drawn by Investing Police Officer in which also mentioned the number of offending vehicle. Such being the fact, question of implication in the MLC register does not arise. Further more, the author of the document Pw.5 Dr.Mahesh was examined. Said witness in his evidence specifically deposed that the vehicle involved in the accident is offending vehicle. Such being the fact, implication of the vehicle as stated by Learned counsel for respondent no.2 does not arise. Thus, I am of the opinion that petitioner has proved that the alleged accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tempo as contended in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence." - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051212020 NC: 2026:KHC:37478 MFA No. 1266 of 2020 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tempo. The said finding recorded by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court. 19. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, upon careful consideration of the income, avocation, age and other relevant aspects of the claimant, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is just and reasonable and does not call for any modification. 20. However, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of MS. JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS VS. VENKATESHAN V. AND OTHERS in M.F.A. No.5896/2018, the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 8% per annum. Accordingly, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is modified, and the claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051212020 NC: 2026:KHC:37478 MFA No. 1266 of 2020 21. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount deposited by the insurance company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30