-1- MFA.No.7667/2015 c/w MFA.No.4551/2015 RESERVED ON : 31.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 27.01.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7667 OF 2015 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4551 OF2015 (MV) IN MFA NO.7667/2015 BETWEEN: PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT BALACHAHALLI VILLAGE, SULADEVANAHALLI, AMMANLURU POST, VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT. NOW R/AT NO.29/2, 5TH CROSS VEERANNA PALYA VILLAGE, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE – 560 045. ....…APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA R. NAIK., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. MURTHY M., S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, R/AT NO. 28/A, 5TH CROSS, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, VEERANAPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 045. -2- MFA.No.7667/2015 c/w MFA.No.4551/2015 2 . THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O 13, ETHIRAJ MUTT BUILDING, NO.199, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, SAMPIGE ROAD, NEAR 11TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 003, BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. .…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 01.04.2019 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1989, OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.4120/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSION. IN MFA NO.4551/2015 BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE-13, ETHIRAJ MUTT BUILDING, NO.199, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, SAMPIGE ROAD,NEAR 11TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU. THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025. REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. ... …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE) AND: PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O BALACHAHALLI VILLAGE, SULADEVANAHALLI, AMMANALLURU POST, -3- MFA.No.7667/2015 c/w MFA.No.4551/2015 VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT - 563 101. AT PRESENT R/O NO.29/2, 5TH CROSS, VEERANNAPALYA VILLAGE, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 045. ..…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA R. NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.R. ANGADI., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1989, OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.4120/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,25,000/- WITH INTEREST @8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, T.M. NADAF., DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M. NADAF CAV JUDGMENT These two appeals, one by insurer and another by claimant are directed against the judgment and award dated 16.03.2015 in MVC.No.4120/2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (SCCH-22) (‘Tribunal for short’), on liability by the insurer and on the quantum by the claimant. -4- MFA.No.7667/2015 c/w MFA.No.4551/2015 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Heard Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel for appellant-insurer in MFA.No.4551/2015 and respondent No.2 in MFA.No.7667/2015, Sri.Ramachandra R.Naik and Sri.Suresh.M, learned counsel for claimant/appellant and respondent No.1 in MFA.No.4551/2015 and Sri.B.R. Angadi for respondent No.2. 4. In MFA.No.4551/2015 by the insurer on the point of liability, Sri.Mulkhand mainly submits that a false case was foisted against the insured offending vehicle, whereby the claimant was shown to have suffered injuries in the accident occurred on 31.05.2012. Sri.Mulkhand argues mainly on the following: GROUNDS (i) Firstly, a perusal of complaint there is no whisper regarding the presence of the claimant on the spot to show that he too suffered injuries in the accident. (ii) Secondly, after a period of 27 days, the claimant has given his statement before the police stating -5- MFA.No.7667/2015 c/w MFA.No.4551/2015 that he being a pillion on the motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-TCR-15 suffered injuries due to the actionable riding in a rash and negligent manner by the rider of the motorcycle. (iii) Thirdly, as per his statement the rider of the motorcycle was his maternal uncle. The accident occurred on 31.05.2012. He was in-patient till 06.06.2012, however, he has not taken any pain to report the incident of accident to the police at the earliest point of time. The delay of 27 days has not been properly explained, in his statement. 5. In these circumstances, the injury suffered by the claimant in the accident occurred on 31.05.2012 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and a made believable story is created by means of giving a statement belatedly after 27 days stating that he too suffered injuries in the accident occurred on 31.05.2012. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and held that the claimant has suffered injuries in the accident dated 31.05.2012, due to the actionable rash and -6- MFA.No.7667/2015 c/w MFA.No.4551/2015 negligent riding by the rider of the TVS motorcycle and proceeded to award compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal exonerating the Insurance company from paying the compensation. 6. Refuting the submissions of Sri.Mulkand, Sri Ramachandra with all vehemence submits that, it is not in dispute that the accident was immediately reported to the police on the very same day, by the maternal uncle of one Malathi, a minor girl who sustained injuries in the accident. Though there is no mention in the complaint regarding the claimant, the fact remains that the claimant was hospitalized on the very same day immediately after the accident as per Ex.P6 wound certificate and examined by the Doctor at 03.30 pm. Since the FIR was lodged and the criminal law is set into motion and as the claimant was under treatment, was under the impression that the police have taken up investigation, has not reported the accident to the police. However, the police during the course of investigation recorded his statement as he too injured in the accident. The police having registered the case, conducted investigation and -7- MFA.No.7667/2015 c/w MFA.No.4551/2015 filed charge sheet. The charge sheet filed by the police is intact and not called in question either by the rider or the owner of the motorcycle. The insurance company except leading the evidence of the officer of the company has not taken any pain either to examine any independent witness or the Investigating Officer to discredit the claim made by the claimant. Even the document produced by the insurance company i.e., copy of wound certificate at Ex.R1 (Ex.P6 by claimant) clearly shows that the claimant was hospitalized on 31.05.2012 at 03.30 p.m. on the very same date of accident. In these circumstances there is no question of suspicion regarding the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident. 7. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the claimant has sustained Zygomatic fracture. The Tribunal has not considered the case of the claimant for awarding appropriate compensation with reference to the injury suffered and the treatment taken. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal by the claimant and enhance the compensation by dismissing the appeal by the insurer. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal -8- MFA.No.7667/2015 c/w MFA.No.4551/2015 papers as well as trial Court record. The points that arise for my consideration are: (i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in answering Issue No.1 framed on rash and negligence of the rider of the TVS motorcycle? (ii) Whether the claimant has made out any case for enhancement of compensation? 9. My answer to both the points for consideration are: (i) In Affirmative (ii) In Negative, for the following: REASONS 10. It is trite that mere delay in registering the complaint or submitting the statement belatedly is not the sole ground available to the insurance company to deny its liability to pay the compensation. My view gains strength with the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others1, in paragraph Nos.17, 18 and 19, wherein it is observed as under: “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 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 -9- MFA.No.7667/2015 c/w MFA.No.4551/2015 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. 19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the 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. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.” 11. It is an admitted fact that in the case on hand the complaint was registered on the very same day of accident i.e., on 31.05.2012 by the maternal uncle of injured minor, who has filed a separate claim petition. It is further on record that even -10- MFA.No.7667/2015 c/w MFA.No.4551/2015 according to the insurer that the claimant admitted to the hospital on the very same day at 03.30 p.m. A mere recording of statement belatedly by the police with reference to the injuries sustained and only on the fact that the name of the claimant is not forthcoming as pillion rider in the complaint will not entail the Insurer to claim that the claimant has not suffered any injuries in the accident occurred on 31.05.2012, in the teeth of the document i.e., the wound certificate produced by the claimant as well as Insurer at Ex.P6/Ex.R1. As such the contentions of the insurer cannot be countenanced. The Tribunal having considered these aspects of the matter with valid reasons has come to a conclusion in answering Issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant, which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, appeal filed by the insurance company does not survive for consideration since it sans merits and is required to be dismissed. 12. So far as the submissions of learned counsel for the claimant-appellant regarding quantum of compensation, the Tribunal having considered the injury i.e., simple fracture i.e., soft tissue with Zygomatic fracture has awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The compensation awarded under each head is appropriate and -11- MFA.No.7667/2015 c/w MFA.No.4551/2015 proportionate to the injuries suffered in the accident. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Even if it is considered that there is a shortfall in the compensation towards loss of amenities, the compensation awarded under other heads such as, pain and suffering, food, nourishment, attendant & Transportation and loss of income during the laid up period, coupled with interest at the rate of 8% per annum would compensate the same. 13. In these circumstances, there is no scope even for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. For the fore going reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i. Both the appeals are dismissed, confirming the judgment and award dated 16.03.2015 in MVC.No.4120/2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (SCCH-22). ii. The amount in deposit in the appeal by the insurer shall be transmitted to the trial Court for disbursement. -12- MFA.No.7667/2015 c/w MFA.No.4551/2015 iii. The insurer shall deposit balance compensation amount along with the accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. iv. Upon deposit, the Tribunal shall release entire amount in favour of claimant on proper identification. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR