- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5275 MFA No. 7755 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7755 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MAHESH @ MAHESH KUMAR SAHANI S/O RAMACHANDRA SAHANI AGED 38 YEARS R/AT NO 456 GADI SHIVANNA HOUSE MPM LAYOUT KENGUNTE MALLATHALLI BANGALORE - 56 PERMANENT ADDRESS OF NO 57 PIPARA LATEEF ANCHAL PARBATTA KHAGNA DIST BIHAR STATE …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOPI Y.R S/O RAJANNA Y S R/AT NO 25/1 REVENUE LAYOUT MPM LAYOUT MALLATHAHALLI BANGALORE - 56 2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD NO 89 SVR COMPLEX HOSUR MAIN ROAD MADIVALA BANGALORE - 68 BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A N KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.07.2019 NOTICE TO R1-GOPI Y.R. IS HELD SUFFICIENT) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5275 MFA No. 7755 of 2015 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3795/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 27.06.2015 passed in MVC No.3795/2014 on the file of the Member, MACT, XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner/injured claimant had filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5275 MFA No. 7755 of 2015 evidence on record dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed. 4. It is stated that the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that there was a delay of two days in lodging the FIR, though the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. There are some discrepancies in the police documents which is negligible. There is no dispute regarding the involvement of the vehicle. But it was not properly discussed by the Tribunal. Ex.P.9-medical record clearly shows the factum of the accident. Despite the same, the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation. The Tribunal ought to have granted compensation after considering the material on record. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that this is a case of false implication of vehicle. The complaint was lodged two days after the accident and as per the IMV report, there was no damage to the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-41-X-2125. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5275 MFA No. 7755 of 2015 Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition and it needs no interference. 6. The manner of the accident is that on 07.08.2014, the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-41-X-2125, along with one Nagarajappa, who was riding the said motorcycle. The rider was driving the motorcycle at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules. When they reached near Deepa Complex, he dashed against another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02-HD-2980 from behind and caused the accident. Due to the impact, both of them fell down and the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to the hospital where he was admitted as an inpatient from 08.08.2014 to 01.09.2014. It is further stated that the claimant was aged 37 years, working as a Tiles Fitter and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. 7. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 contended that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5275 MFA No. 7755 of 2015 rider of the insured vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was further contended that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and that it was falsely implicated after a delay of two days. It is also contended that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the claimant has not impleaded the rider and insurer of the other motorcycle. 8. It is mainly contended that the Tribunal has observed that there was no damage to the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-41-X-2125, whereas the other motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02-HD-2980 had sustained damage to the headlamp, mask, and steering handle. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that the accident had not occurred in the manner stated by the petitioner. It was further observed that, as per Ex.P.4, the front portion of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-41-X-2125 and the rear portion of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02- HD-2980 were not damaged. On the contrary, the front - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5275 MFA No. 7755 of 2015 portion of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-HD-2980 was found to be damaged. 9. The case of the petitioner is that while he was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-41- X-2125, the rider of the said motorcycle driven it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02-HD-2980 from behind. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to the hospital. The Tribunal observed that there was a delay of two days in lodging the complaint and on that basis, concluded that it was a case of vehicle implication. A delay of two days in filing the complaint is not fatal to the claim and merely on that ground, it cannot be presumed that the vehicle was falsely implicated. PW.1 himself stated that he was travelling on motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 41-X-2125 and the accident occurred when the rider of the said motorcycle dashed against another vehicle. Therefore, the observation of the Tribunal relying upon IMV report - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5275 MFA No. 7755 of 2015 and considering the damages of both the vehicles and dismissal of the case against driver of offending vehicle is not a proper appreciation of the facts and it needs to be set side. 10. The petitioner sustained an open type-I fracture of the lower 1/3rd of the right tibia and fibula and remained as an inpatient for 26 days. He examined the doctor as PW.4. The petitioner was aged 37 years and the applicable multiplier is ‘15’. As per the evidence of PW.4, the petitioner sustained an open type-I fracture of the lower 1/3rd of the right tibia and fibula. Initially, he was treated at Essential Hospital and was thereafter shifted to KIMS Hospital, where he underwent closed reduction and intramedullary (IM) nailing on 13.08.2014. The post- operative period was uneventful. Tenderness and swelling over lower 1/3 right tibia. Fracture has united with implants-in-situ. 11. The doctor assessed 15% disability to the whole body, with physical impairment of the right lower limb. He - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5275 MFA No. 7755 of 2015 further stated that the petitioner would require one more surgery for removal of implants and estimated the cost of the said surgery at Rs.40,000/-. The petitioner has not produced any income proof. Since the accident occurred in the year 2014, his notional income is taken at Rs.8,500/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner was aged 37 years and the applicable multiplier is ‘15’. Considering the medical evidence on record, this Court finds it reasonable to take the disability at 15%, as assessed by the doctor. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.2,29,500/- (Rs.8,500 × 12 × 15 × 15%). The petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 26 days as an inpatient. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to award Rs.65,567/- towards medical expenses. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to award Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities, and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment, and attendant - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5275 MFA No. 7755 of 2015 charges. The petitioner might not have attended his work for a period of three months. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.25,500/- (Rs.8,500 × 3) is awarded under the head loss of income during the laid-up period. Though the doctor has assessed the future medical expenses at Rs.40,000/-, this Court finds it reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the said head. 12. Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below: Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Towards pain and suffering 30,000/- 2 Towards medical expenses 65,567/- 3 Towards loss of amenities 15,000/- 4 Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 20,000/- 5 Towards loss of income during laid up period 25,500/- 6 Towards loss of future earning capacity 2,29,500/- 7 Towards future medical expenses 20,000/- Total 4,05,567/- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5275 MFA No. 7755 of 2015 13. Hence, the appellant–claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,05,567/-. As this is a case of no valid driving licence, pay and recovery is ordered in favour of the insurance company. 14. Accordingly, the insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.4,05,567/- along with interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. 15. The insurance company is at liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49