HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2927 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CORPORATE AND REG. OFFICE, ORIENTAL HOUSE P.B.NO.7037, ASAD ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, TP HUB, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. RAMU @ RAMANNA H.B. S/O BHIMANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, EMPLOYEE R/AT HALLIKARA STREET, CHANNAGIRI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 PRESENTLY WORKING AT E-CART OFFICE, NEAR NAYANA SHOW ROOM, MALLANDUR ROAD, UPPALLI, CHICKMAGALUR. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 2 - 2. RONALD PINTO S/O THIMOTHY PINTO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS DRIVER, R/O NUCHILA HOUSE, NADA VILLAGE, PERUMAL POST, BELTHANGADI TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. 3. PARTNER M/S KUSHI CHICKEN REGO COMPOUND, R/O KOTTARA CROSS, MANGALORE - 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.524/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,30,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 3 - ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 21.02.2019, passed in M.V.C.No.524/2017, by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chikkamagaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’]. By the Impugned Award, the claim petition filed by the respondent No.1/claimant has been partly allowed and a compensation in the sum of ₹8,30,000/- has been awarded along with 8% interest per annum. 2. The challenge in the present appeal is by the appellant/Insurance Company. 3. The brief relevant facts of the case are that on 28.12.2015, in afternoon at about 3.30 p.m., the respondent No.1 / claimant, along with his friend, was riding a motorcycle bearing No.KA 17 EH 0932, going from Channagiri to Dharmasthal. While they were near Annappaswamy Temple, an Eicher Lorry bearing HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 4 - registration No.KA 19 AB 1454, coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle ridden by respondent No.1/claimant. Both the respondent No.1 and his friend fell from the motor cycle. The claimant sustained injuries on his head and forehead and was rushed to the MGM Taluk, General Hospital, Mudigere. Due to the accident, the claimant also suffered a disability. A claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation by the claimant. It was stated that, due to the injuries sustained, the claimant has incurred substantial loss in his business. 3.1. The claim petition was contested by both the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle. They filed their written statements stating that the motorcycle had collided with the lorry. The respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 i.e., the driver and the owner of the offending lorry, respectively and respondent No.3 / appellant / Insurance Company also contested the claim. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 5 - 4. On the basis of the pleadings between the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court: “1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 28.12.2015 at about 3.30 p.m., near Annappaswamy Temple, NH 234, KM Road, Charmadi Ghat, Tharuve Village, Banakal Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Dist, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 being the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.KA 19 AB 1454 while the petitioner was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 17 EH 0932? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation amount? If so for what amount and from whom? 3. What order or decree?” 5. The claimant was examined as PW-1 and marked 26 documents. The respondents however, did not lead any evidence. Based on the evidence before the Court, the learned Trial Court awarded the following amounts as compensation, along with interest at 8% per annum: 1 Towards loss of income Rs. 4,50,000/- 2 Towards closure of business Rs. 3,00,000/- HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 6 - 3 Towards pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/- 4 Towards conveyance charges Rs. 10,000/- 5 Towards Food, Nourishment and Attendant Charges Rs. 10,000/- TOTAL Rs. 8,30,000/- 6. This Court had on 16.02.2026, after briefly hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed the following order: “3. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has raised two grounds in this appeal. Firstly, he says that the claim petition was filed 93 days after the date of the accident and thus the learned Trial Court could not have accorded any compensation. Secondly, he submits that in terms of Exhibit P-11 and Exhibit P-25, which are the Wound Certificate and the in-patient case sheet, as filed by the respondent No.1/claimant, does not refer to any accident being caused, but merely that the respondent No.1/claimant has fallen from his motorcycle. 4. Sofaras it concerns the first aspect of the matter, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant submits that this issue was not raised by the appellant/Insurance Company in their Written Statement dated 02.07.2018 and no issue on delay was framed by the learned Trial Court. However, it is contented that the learned Trial Court did examine this aspect and found that based on the charge sheet and the admission of guilt by the Driver of the offending Eicher Lorry, this ground cannot be sustained, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 7 - 4.1. On the second ground, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant submits that he has not received a copy of the translations of the documents, which have been placed on record and requests for some time to examine the same and make his submissions.” 7. As stated above, the challenge in the appeal raised by the appellant is on two grounds: firstly, the appellant / insurance company submits that the claim petition was filed belatedly and secondly, he submits that the wound certificate as well as the inpatient sheet does not refer to any accident being caused. The learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company has today also contended that excessive compensation has been awarded to the claimant. 8. The questions that arise for consideration before this Court are: (i) Whether the respondent No.1 / claimant was not entitled to any compensation in view of the delay in lodging the FIR? HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 8 - (ii) Whether the injuries sustained by the respondent No.1 / claimant was as a result of the accident or whether self-fall? (iii) Whether the compensation is awarded and the income fixed by the Tribunal has been correctly fixed? 9. This Court had on 16.02.2026, while examining the matter held that the no issue of delay was raised by the appellant / insurance company in their written statement and thus no issue was framed by the learned Tribunal. However, the Tribunal did examine this aspect and found that based on the charge-sheet and the admission of guilt by the driver of the offending Eicher lorry, this ground could not be sustained in the following manner: “20. The contention of petitioner is that as per Ex.P.25 it is a road traffic accident and as per other materials and Ex.P.26 the respondent No.1 admitted the guilt before the court and he has not challenged the charge sheet. Hence, contention of respondents cannot be acceptable. The principles, which are held in the case laws which are relied upon by petitioner is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of instant case on hand. 21. I find that the purpose of lodging FIR is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 9 - certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation. But delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. Under such circumstances, this tribunal has to accept the petitioner's version and hold that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its rider. Therefore, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.” [Emphasis Supplied] 10. Given the well-reasoned finding by the Tribunal, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with this finding of the learned Tribunal. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / claimant also seeks to rely upon two documents, the charge-sheet (Exhibit-P2) as well as Exhibit-P26 which is a copy of the order dated 19.08.2017 passed in C.C.No.456/2017 to submit that the driver of the offending vehicle has himself pleaded guilty of causing the accident. Thus, there can be no doubt that there was infact an accident that occurred. 12. So far as concerns the aspect of delay in the matter, it is a settled law that mere delay will not defeat a claim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the judgment in the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 10 - case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan And Others1 held that it is well-settled that the delay in lodging an FIR cannot be a ground to doubt a claimant’s case. The relevant extract is below: 17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. 18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. [Emphasis Supplied] 13. As stated above, this Court has examined the evidence i.e., Exhibit-P2 (charge-sheet), Exhibit-P3 (FIR) Exhibit-P4 (Copy of the complaint), Exhibit-P10 (copy of the IMV report), as well as Exhibit-P26 (copy of the order- 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 11 - sheet). All the aforesaid documents relates to all evidence to show that an accident was caused between two vehicles, i.e., the vehicle of motor cycle of the respondent No.1 / claimant bearing motorcycle registration No.KA 17 EH 0932 and the offending lorry bearing No.KA 19 AB 1454. Thus, the challenge on this ground cannot be sustained. 14. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has averred that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the claimant a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards loss of income. He contends that this award is based on the calculation of the income at Rs.25,000/- per month. However, no evidence of this income has been placed on record. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / claimant on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has placed on record as Exhibits-P18 to P22, documents in respect of his business and has also placed on record salary slip of the job that he is currently doing. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 12 - 16. This Court has perused the evidence at Exhibit-P18, which is the VAT Registration Certificate certifying the place of business of the respondent / claimant. Exhibit- P19, Professional Certificate issued for enrollment under the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976 (Act No. 35 of 1976), Exhibits-P21 and P22 are the copies of the identity card of the claimant, as well as his salary slip. These documents can be reflective of the fact that the respondent / claimant was carrying on business, but they do not show that he was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month before the accident. No document has been placed on record evidencing that Rs.25,000/- per month was being earned by the respondent – claimant. However, the salary slips which are on record, Exhibits-P22 to P24 do show a salary of Rs.9,157/- per month as the salary for the months of July and September and October 2017. Thus, the only proof of income of the respondent / claimant was the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 13 - salary slips, which are the salary after he had to close his business and took a job in a Company. 17. The learned Trial Court has however awarded Rs.4,50,000/- for loss of income calculating it as: Rs.25,000 x 18 = Rs.4,50,000. Given the aforegoing, the finding in this behalf, this amount cannot be sustained. However, the notional income for this period i.e., 2015, is Rs.9,000/- per month and the salary slip which is produced by the respondent No.1 / claimant is also in thereabouts. The respondent No.1 / claimant was 40 years as on the date of the accident, thus the appropriate multiplier would be ‘15’. Accordingly, the revised compensation towards loss of income is calculated as follows: Rs.9,000 x 18 = Rs.1,62,000/- 18. It is not disputed that the appellant was hospitalized for 15 days. The wound certificate particulars issued in favour of respondent No.1 / claimant shows that he was admitted into hospital on 29.12.2015 and was discharged on 11.01.201. Thus, the appellant was hospitalized for HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 14 - about 15 days. The learned Trial Court has however, not awarded any amount towards hospitalization charges. This Court feels it apposite to award 3 months salary for loss of income. 19. Therefore, the revised compensation is awarded in the following amounts: Sl.No. Heads Amounts 1 Towards loss of income Rs. 1,62,000/- 2 Towards closure of business Rs. 3,00,000/- 3 Towards pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/- 4 Towards conveyance charges Rs. 10,000/- 5 Towards Food, Nourishment and Attendant Charges Rs. 10,000/- 6 Loss of Income Rs. 27,000/- TOTAL Rs. 5,69,000/- 20. The respondent / claimant is entitled to a total compensation in a sum of Rs.5,69,000/- and is at liberty to withdraw the revised compensation along with interest. The amount in deposit before this Court shall stand HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 15 - transferred. Once the respondent / claimant withdraws the awarded amount with interest, the balance if any remaining shall be released to the insurance company. 21. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following directions: ORDER (i) The appeal is Partly Allowed. (ii) The Impugned Judgment and Award dated 21.02.2019, passed in M.V.C.No.524/2017, by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chikkamagaluru is modified to the extent that the respondent / claimant is entitled to a total compensation in a sum of Rs.5,69,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10737 MFA No. 2927 of 2019 - 16 - (iv) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (v) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records. (vi) No order as to costs. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE JJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA