Sri Sachingowda M G Vs Madhu H C

SRI. SACHINGOWDA M G S/O GANGAANKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O MARALUDEVANAPURA, CHAKRABAVI POST, MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 586 221.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA (BY SRI. M.V. MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE) G

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

MADHU H.C S/O CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O HONNASHATTIHALLI VILLAGE, JINNENAHALLI POST, HIRISAVE HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 572 124.

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:44080 MFA No. 4929 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3787 of 2022

¶19

2 -

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

2. THE MANAGER

¶22

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 4TH FLOOR, CENTURY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. BHADRE GOWDA B, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.7441/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-4, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

IN MFA NO. 3787/2022

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 4TH FLOOR, CENTURY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGLAURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶29

...APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

SRI SACHINGOWDA M G S/O GANGAANKAIAH AGED 27 YEARS,

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44080 MFA No. 4929 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3787 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

R/AT MARALUDEVANAPURA CHAKRABAVI POST, MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 561 201.

¶36

SRI.MADHU H.C. S/O CHANDREGOWDA AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT HONNASHATTIHALLI VILLAGE, JINNENAHALLI POST, HIRISAVE HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 572 124 (RC OWNER OF APE LUGGAGE AUTO BEARING REG.NO.KA-13-C-1231) (EXPARTE)

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. M.V. MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.02.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.7441/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-4), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,80,496/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶40

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

¶41

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44080 MFA No. 4929 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3787 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶46

Both these appeals arises out of judgment and award dated 02^nd March 2022, passed by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-4), (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.7441/2019. MFA No.4929/2022 is filed by the claimant and MFA No.3787/2022 is filed by insurer. Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment and award, they are taken up together for disposal.

¶47

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶48

referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶49

The brief facts of the case are that, on 13.09.2018 at about 2.15 p.m., the claimant was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42-W-4794 on Ramanagara to Mathikere road, at Madabal Holi village of Magadi Taluk, he met with an accident, due to rash and negligent driving of a goods auto bearing registration No.KA-13-C-1231. Due to impact, he sustained grievous injuries and has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44080 MFA No. 4929 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3787 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Respondent No. 1 was the owner, and Respondent

¶53

No. 2 was the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.

¶54

1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No. 2 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the petition and contended that a false case had been instituted to claim compensation. The respondent further denied its liability to pay the said compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶55

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

¶56

Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination.

¶57

The claimant to prove his case examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 26 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-26. Respondents have not led any oral and documentary evidence.

¶58

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and awarded the following amount of compensation:

¶59

6 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:44080 MFA No. 4929 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3787 of 2022

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future income	6,48,000/-
Loss of income during the laid up period and attendant charge	50,000/-
Conveyance charges	20,000/-
Pain and sufferings	1,00,000/-
Food nourishment and loss of amenities	20,000/-
Medical bills	4,92,496/-
Future medical expenses	50,000/-
Total	13,80,496/-

¶63

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the claimant as well as insurer.

¶64

The contention of the appellant–claimant is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. It is argued that the Tribunal did not properly appreciate the income of the claimant as well as his disability and therefore, failed to award just and reasonable compensation. On the other hand, the contention of the insurer is that there was a delay of five days in lodging the complaint, which indicates that a false case was registered to claim compensation in collusion with the

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44080 MFA No. 4929 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3787 of 2022

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

police and the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal failed to properly consider this contention and has erroneously answered Issue No. 1 against the insurer. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and award be set aside.

¶68

Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments:

¶69

i. Ranjeet and Another Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb

¶70

and Another, arising out of SLP(C)

¶71

No.10351/2019, decided on 25.02.2025.

¶72

ii. M/s. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd Vs. Smt. Bharthi S Reddy and Others 1

¶73

The main contention of the insurer before the Tribunal was that there was a delay in filing the complaint, and that delay was not properly explained. Therefore, the insurer contended that the accident in question appeared suspicious and that a false complaint had been filed after a delay of five days solely to claim compensation. During the crossexamination of PW.1, he has stated that his relatives and

¶74

1 ILR 2016 KAR 55

¶75

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44080 MFA No. 4929 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3787 of 2022

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

friends had reached the hospital and had come to know about the accident; however, none of them lodged a complaint. The reasons stated in the affidavit and in the complaint filed by the claimant’s uncle are not believable. Hence, on that ground, the insurer prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶78

The learned Trial Judge elaborately discussed these facts. The Tribunal has also taken note of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others² rendered in the Civil Appeal No.1926/2007, decided on 18.02.2011 . Undisputedly, respondent No.2 has not examined any person in support of its contention nor collected any materials and no admission was obtained in the cross-examination of PW.1 to believe that a false case was lodged by the relatives of the claimant just to claim the compensation. The reason given by the complainant is that he was attending to the claimant in the hospital, and there was no one else available to look after him. Hence, the complaint was lodged on 18.09.2018.

¶79

2 (2011) 4 SCC 693

¶80

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:44080 MFA No. 4929 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3787 of 2022

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

The contention of the insurer is on the basis of presumption and assumption. At least the concerned officer who was instructed to draft the written statement, could be examined before the Court to explain the source of information on which he was contending that it was a false case. In the absence of any material evidence to substantiate such a claim, the contention of the insurer amounts to harassment of a victim of an accident and adds insult to the injury already sustained by him in a vehicle accident. On re-appreciation of the evidence, I do not find any reasons to interfere in the said findings of the Tribunal.

¶83

The Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.12,500/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimant vehemently contends that the said income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is pertinent to note that the claimant has contended that he was working for an agency and he was working at BHEL through the said agency. The said job was completed just a day prior to the incident. The claimant has not produced any evidence regarding the salary or wages he received from BHEL. Even Ex.P.15, which the learned

¶84

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:44080 MFA No. 4929 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3787 of 2022

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

counsel for the appellant-claimant relied upon, does not disclose the claimant’s earnings. It merely shows that he was a sincere worker and that he worked at BHEL from 01.07.2018 to 12.09.2018. It does not indicate the wages he received during his employment at BHEL, nor does it disclose his educational qualifications, work experience, or the number of places where he had previously worked. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income on the basis of chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. There is no error in the said finding. Accepting the medical evidence, the Tribunal has assessed permanent disability at 24% to the whole body which also does not call for any interference.

¶87

Considering the amount of compensation awarded under other heads, it appears to be on the lower side. The claimant sustained three fractures and his two toes were amputated. Looking at the said injuries, the amount of compensation awarded under the head 'pain and suffering' is on the lower side. The same is required to be enhanced. For the above said discussions, the claimant is entitled to the following amount of compensation:

¶88

11 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:44080 MFA No. 4929 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3787 of 2022

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future income	6,48,000/-
Loss of income during the laid up period	50,000/-
Attendant charge	25,000/-
Conveyance charges	20,000/-
Pain and sufferings	1,25,000/-
Food and nourishment	20,000/-
Loss of amenities	50,000/-
Medical bills	4,92,496/-
Future medical expenses	50,000/-
Total	14,80,496/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal	13,80,496/-
Enhancement-	*1,00,000/-*

¶92

16. The claimant is entitled to interest on the enhanced

¶93

amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation.

¶94

Undisputedly, respondents were owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount.

¶95

12 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:44080 MFA No. 4929 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3787 of 2022

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶99

ORDER

¶100

i) MFA No.4929/2022 is allowed in part .

¶101

ii) MFA No.3787/2022 is dismissed.

¶102

iii) The judgment and award dated 02^nd March 2015, passed in MVC.No.7441/2019, by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-4), stands modified;

¶103

iv) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

¶104

v) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award.

¶105

vi) The enhanced amount of compensation is marginal. Therefore, entire enhanced amount shall be released in favour of claimant on due identification.

¶106

vii) Whatever amount is deposited by the insurer in MFA No.3787/2022 shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.

¶107