- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010456172021 NC: 2026:KHC:40047 MFA No. 6585 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6585 OF 2021(MV-D) BETWEEN: LOKESH R S/O NARASAPPA RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A NO.16, KANMINIKE COLONY KUMBALAGOD POST BANGALORE 560 123 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. THIPPESWAMY J.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE KENCHARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A SHESHAGIRIHALLI VILLAGE RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT 560 126 2. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE OFFICE AT 4/3-1AND 3/2M, 11TH MAIN 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560 010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. TEJAS N, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1021/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM AND MEMBER MACT- BENGALURU SCCH-26, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,95,000/- WITH INTEREST Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010456172021 NC: 2026:KHC:40047 MFA No. 6585 of 2021 AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The insured-owner has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1021/2019 dated 29.09.2021 by the Court of XXIV Addl. Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ACMM (SCCH-26) at Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant and awarded compensation of Rs.5,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. The brief facts of the case are, on 14.06.2018 at about 1:00 p.m., Kencharangaiah (deceased) was walking on the left side of the foot path at Mysore-Bangalore main road, SVT Colony, Bidadi, at that time, the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-52--K-9731 came from Mysore side in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Kencharangaiah, who was a pedestrian. As a result, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010456172021 NC: 2026:KHC:40047 MFA No. 6585 of 2021 he sustained injuries and was shifted to RR Hospital, Kengeri. However, during the treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. As such, the wife of the deceased-Kencharangaiah filed claim petition seeking compensation for the accidental death of her husband. 3. The Tribunal, on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation as stated supra. Further, the Tribunal fastened the entire liability on the owner of the motorcycle by exonerating the Insurance Company. As such, the insured challenged the impugned judgment in this appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel Sri Thippeswamy J. for the appellant and learned counsel Sri Tejas N. for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri B. Pradeep for respondent No.2. 5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the appellant-insured contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred while saddling the entire liability on the owner/insured, despite investigation documents like FIR and charge sheet depict that the rider of the motorcycle was solely responsible for the accident. In such circumstances, the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010456172021 NC: 2026:KHC:40047 MFA No. 6585 of 2021 Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. He further contended that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and the policy issued by respondent No.2 was in force at the time of accident. As such, the Tribunal is not justified in saddling entire liability against the insured. Notwithstanding the above contention, he contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding exorbitant compensation on all the heads. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1- claimant contended that the Tribunal, upon appreciation of entire evidence on record, rightly saddled the entire liability on the insured/owner of the offending vehicle, since the offending vehicle was not covered with the insurance policy of respondent No.2 at the time of accident and according to him, this is the case of no policy. He further contended that the Tribunal also justified in awarding just compensation under all heads. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company supports the impugned awarded and prays to dismiss the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010456172021 NC: 2026:KHC:40047 MFA No. 6585 of 2021 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents made available on record. 9. As could be gathered from records, respondent No.2-Insurance Company has specifically contended that the appellant-insured failed to furnish the particulars of policy as on the date of accident. As such, he is not complied with the statutory demand, though it is mandatory under Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned Police Station. In such circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in saddling the entire liability on the insured. Even otherwise, the insured has also failed to examine any witness on his behalf to substantiate that the offending vehicle was covered with insurance policy of respondent No.2. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal is justified in holding that the offending vehicle was not covered with the insurance policy at the time of accident. As such, the insured-owner is liable to pay the compensation. 10. As far as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, on careful perusal of the same, the Tribunal is - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010456172021 NC: 2026:KHC:40047 MFA No. 6585 of 2021 justified in awarding compensation under the heads 'loss of dependency' 'loss of consortium' and 'loss of estate', which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 11. The Tribunal has erred in awarding 9% interest for the compensation instead of 6%. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.5896/2018 dated 24.08.2020, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is modified and the claimant-respondent No.1 is entitled for the interest at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 9%. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. The apportionment of compensation amount shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6