The Manager, Vs Mallikarjuna S/O K Lakshman

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101576 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶6

C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101577 OF 2015 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101578 OF 2015

¶8

IN MFA NO.101576/2015

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO.16/17, 1^ST FLOOR, NIRMAL BUILDING, DOUBLE ROAD, BALLARI REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY (CLAIMS), CHOLAMANDALAM M.S.GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO. 135/5, 2^ND FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR, 3^RD PHASE, BENGALURU-560078.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶15

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.15 17:45:27 +0530

¶16

ANBDUL NABEER @ ABDUL NABI S/O SHAIKSHAVALI @ SHAIKSAB, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KHANA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶17

MOHAMMED GHOUSE S/O ABDUL GANI, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC:RIDER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REGN NO. KA-35/U-5088, R/O: KANCHIGARPET, BALLARI ROAD, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI.

¶18

RIJUVANA S/O ABDUL KHUDDS, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: R.C.OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-35/U-5088, R/O: NO. 188 B, RAM RAHIM NAGAR,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BHOVI COLONY, RAMANAGAR, H.B.HALLI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶23

H SURESH S/O BOOLUKA, AGE: 36 YEARS, POLICY HOLDER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO. KA-35/U-5088, R/O: H.NO. 269, 13^TH WARD, E.V.CAMP, T.B. DAM, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADV FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:11.03.2015, PASSED IN MVC. NO.577/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM MEMBER VI MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT KUDLIGI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,58,262/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TIL ITS REALIZATION.

¶27

IN MFA NO. 101577 OF 2015

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO.16/17, 1^ST FLOOR, NIRMAL BUILDING, DOUBLE ROAD, BALLARI REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO. 135/5, 2^ND FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR, 3^RD PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶30

…APPELLANT

¶31

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV)

¶32

AND:

¶33

MALLIKARJUNA S/O K LAKSHMAN, AGE:28 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE, R/O: KHANA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

MOHAMMED GHOUSE S/O ABDUL GANI, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC:RIDER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REGN NO. KA-35/U-5088, R/O: KANCHIGARPET, BALLARI ROAD, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI.

¶37

RIJUVANA S/O ABDUL KHUDDS, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: R.C.OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REGN. NO. KA-35/U-5088, R/O: NO.188 B, RAM RAHIM NAGAR, BHOVI COLONY, RAMANAGAR, H.B.HALLI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶38

H. SURESH S/O BOOLUKA, AGE: 36 YEARS, POLICY HOLDER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO. KA-35/U-5088, R/O: H.NO. 269, 13^TH WARD, E.V.CAMP, T.B. DAM, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADV FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED)

¶41

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.578/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE CUM MEMBER VI-MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT KUDLIGI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,60,637/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶42

IN MFA NO. 101578 OF 2015

¶43

BETWEEN:

¶44

THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO.16/17, 1^ST FLOOR, NIRMAL BUILDING, DOUBLE ROAD, BALLARI REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO.135/5, 2^ND FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR,

¶45

4 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

3^RD PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶49

…APPELLANT

¶50

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV)

¶51

AND:

¶52

ASLAM S/O IMAM SAB, 32 YEARS, MECHANIC, PRESENTLY R/O: GUDEKOTE VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI.

¶53

MOHAMMED GHOUSE S/O ABDUL GANI, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC:RIDER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REGN NO. KA-35/U-5088, R/O: KANCHIGARPET, BALLARI ROAD, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI.

¶54

RIJUVANA S/O ABDUL KHUDDS, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: R.C.OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REGN. NO. KA-35/U-5088, R/O: NO. 188 B, RAM RAHIM NAGAR, BHOVI COLONY, RAMANAGAR, H.B.HALLI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶55

H. SURESH S/O BOOLUKA, AGE: 36 YEARS, POLICY HOLDER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO. KA-35/U-5088, R/O: H.NO. 269, 13^TH WARD, E.V.CAMP, T.B. DAM, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI.

¶56

…RESPONDENTS

¶57

(BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADV FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED)

¶58

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.579/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM MEMBER VI MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT KUDLIGI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,51,812/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶59

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶62

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶63

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶64

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

¶65

These Appeals are filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by a common judgment and award dated 11.03.2015 passed in MVC Nos.577, 578 and 579 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Member VI-MACT at Kudligi (for short, ‘ the Tribunal’ ).

¶66

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows:

¶67

On 08.04.2014, the petitioners were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-35/E-9517. The rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-35/U-5088 came from hind direction driven by Mohammad Ghouse and dashed to the hind portion of the petitioners motorcycle, resulting in the petitioners sustaining a grievous injuries. Immediately, they were admitted to the hospital. The

¶68

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

petitioners spent a huge amount towards medical and other expenses, as such, they filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petitions.

¶71

A Notice was issued to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The Owner of the offending motorcycle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that he is the owner of the offending motorcycle. It is contended that the vehicle was insured and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against him.

¶72

The rider of the offending motorcycle filed a statement of objections stating that he is the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-35/U-5088. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-

¶73

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

35/E-9517, which is insured with the insurance company and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount. Accordingly prays to dismiss the claim petition against them.

¶76

The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and it is denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending motorcycle. It is also contended that the rider of the motor cycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company.

¶77

The Tribunal clubbed all the claim petitions, and framed the common issues.

¶78

The petitioners, to prove their claim averments in all the claim petitions, examined themselves as PW-1 to PW-3, examined the doctor as PW-4 to PW-6 and marked 21 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-21.

¶79

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

The insurance company has not examined any witnesses, nor marked any documents.

¶82

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part vide common Judgment dated 11.03.2015 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,58,262/- in M.V.C. No.577 of 2014, a sum of Rs.1,60,637/- in M.V.C No.578 of 2014, and a sum of Rs.1,51,812/- in M.V.C. No.579 of 2014 and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners in all the cases.

¶83

The insurance company, aggrieved by the impugned common judgment and award, filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals.

¶84

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company, and the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶85

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

The Learned counsel for the insurance company

¶88

submits that the doctor who has issued the Disability Certificate is not a treated doctor, and furthermore, he submits that the doctor was suspended from the practice for a period of six months for issuing a fake Disability Certificate. He submits that the petitioners by playing fraud filed a claim petitions and submits that the Tribunal without considering the said aspect has awarded a huge compensation to the petitioners. He also submits that the petitioners have not suffered any fracture on their body and the injuries sustained by the petitioners are simple in nature. Hence, this aspect was not adequately considered by the Tribunal, and committed an error in awarding the compensation. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶89

Per contra , the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, admittedly, the petitioners met with an accident and the accident occurred due to the rash

¶90

10 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

and negligent riding by the rider of the offending motorcycle. He submits that the charge-sheet is filed against the rider of the offending motorcycle. He also submits that the petitioners, to prove their disability examined the doctors as PW4 to PW6. He submits that there is no challenge to the evidence of PW-4 to PW- i.e., the doctors. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in considering the evidence of PW-4 to PW-6 and has rightly awarded compensation. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeals.

¶94

Perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶95

The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum.

¶96

There is no dispute regarding the petitioners having suffered the injuries in the road traffic accident and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending motorcycle. The tribunal taking

¶97

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

into consideration the charge-sheet filed against the rider of the motorcycle, i.e., Exhibit P-10, has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending motorcycle.

¶100

Regarding QUANTUM :

¶101

The petitioners, to prove that they have suffered a permanent disability, have examined themselves as PW-1 to PW-3, who deposed that they met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. To prove this aspect, they have produced wound certificates marked as Exhibit P5, P12 and P18 regarding PW-1 to PW-3 respectively.

¶102

From the perusal of these wound certificates, it is evident that the petitioners have suffered the injuries. However, the PW-1, has examined the doctor as PW-4 ,who has issued the disability certificate to PW-1 marked as Ex.P-6. The doctor has deposed that he has examined PW1 clinically on 05.12.2014, and after examining PW-1, he was of the opinion that PW-1 has suffered a permanent

¶103

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

physical disability to an extent of 30% to the whole body with a subsequent loss of earning.

¶106

Further, the same doctor, who has also examined PW-2 and PW-3 as well, was examined as PW-5 and PW-6 in the other claim petitions. Regarding PW-2 and PW-3, the doctor has deposed that he has examined PW-2 and PW-3 on 05.12.2014 and issued the Disability Certificates, marked as Exhibits P13 and P19. He has opined that PW2 and PW3 have sustained a permanent physical disability to an extent of 30% to the whole body.

¶107

The Tribunal, considering the Disability Certificates marked as Exhibits P6, P13 and P19 has assessed the disability at 10%, which, in my considered view, is just and proper and do not require any interference by this court.

¶108

Although, the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the doctor was suspended, however, to prove the said aspect, the insurance Company has not

¶109

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

produced any record to show that the doctor (examined as PW-4 to PW6) was suspended for issuing the fake disability certificate.

¶112

The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that after the disposal of the claim petitions by the Tribunal, the insurance company appointed an Investigating Officer to investigate regarding the Disability Certificates. The Investigating Officer, after investigation opined that the petitioners have misrepresented, and have played fraud upon the Tribunal, in getting the compensation.

¶113

The documents which are intended to be produced as an additional evidence by the insurance company, reveals the fraud and exposes the truth, because, though the claim petitions were filed in 2014 and the Tribunal disposed of the claim petitions vide a common judgment and award dated 11.03.2015, these appeals were filed by the insurance company only on 01.06.2015.

¶114

14 -

¶115

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

The insurance company filed an application in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 for the production of an additional evidence in February 2020. Additional evidence, viz ., xerox copy of the certificates issued by the doctor, which discloses that they have not treated the petitioners.

¶118

Though the claim petitions were filed in 2014 and the insurance company filed a statement of objections, the insurance company has not taken a defense in the statement of objections regarding the alleged fraud, misrepresentation and only after the disposal of claim petitions, and after 5 years from the date of filing of appeals, the insurance company has filed an application for production of additional evidence.

¶119

It is pertinent to note that there is no pleading regarding the alleged fraud in the statement of objections. It is apparent that the said documents have been created by the insurance company during the pendency of these appeals. Further, the officers of the insurance company

¶120

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11474 MFA No. 101576 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101577 of 2015 MFA No. 101578 of 2015

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

have not entered the witness box to rebut the case of the petitioners. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the disability based on the Disability Certificates issued by the doctor examined as PW-4 to PW-6 and has rightly awarded a compensation to

¶123

the petitioners in all the claim petitions. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and which, in my considered opinion, do not call for any interference. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award. The insurance company also filed I.A. No.1 of 2024 to examine the witnesses i.e., the doctors. Though sufficient opportunity was provided to the insurance company, the insurance company has not examined any doctors, nor the officers of the insurance company entered the witness box. This application was filed in 2024. I do not find any grounds to entertain I.A. No.1 of 2024. Accordingly, it is rejected.

¶124