The Manager Vs H.K. Kumara

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1398/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MADDUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,08,604/- WITH INTEREST AT 8 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ORDER.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

The present appeal seeks to challenge the award dated

¶26

05.10.2019 passed in MVC No.1398/2015 by learned Senior

¶27

Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur (hereinafter referred as ‘Impugned Award’).

¶28

This Court on 19.01.2026, after hearing the parties had

¶29

passed the following directions:

¶30

“1. The present appeal seeks to challenge an award dated 05.10.2019 passed by Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur in M.V.c.No.1398 of 2015 (hereinafter ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order compensation of Rs.7,08,604/- along with interest at 8% per annum has been granted in favour of Respondent No.1 herein.

¶31

2. Learned counsel for the appellant raises two grounds for challenge. Firstly, he submits that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and that the number of the vehicle was inserted later in the report and that there was 5 days delay in filing the complaint. The second ground raised is that the functional disability has been wrongly taken as 64% to calculate loss of future income instead of Schedule I of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 Part 2 Item 26/26A. Learned counsel submits that the

¶32

2 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:7700 MFA No. 1501 of 2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

percentage of loss of earning capacity should be between 10 and 30%.

¶36

4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that so far as concerns first issue raised, the same would not be relevant since Respondent No.1 has appeared and given the evidence to submit that Ex.R1 was given by him and on the basis of whatever was said by the injured. Learned counsel submits that even if the details were added at subsequent time, the same would not be relevant for the purpose of adjudication since the respondent-(Appellant) Insurance Company himself agrees that he has given the evidence as per the statement of the injured. Thus, he submits this contention is without merit.

¶37

5. On the second aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the evidence was produced including a doctor certificate to show that the functional disability would be approximately 64%.

¶38

6. So far as concerns, the first aspect of the matter, this Court is in agreement with the respondent-claimant. RW1 has in his deposition set out that whatever he has noted down is on the basis of say of what is stated by the injured and that he has also has been re-examined. Para 9 of deposition of RW-1 in this regard is reproduced below:

¶39

“9. In order to disprove the case of the petitioner, the respondent No.2, has summoned the doctor of PHC, Kestur and examined him as RW1 wherein, the RW1 has deposed evidence stating that on that day as per the say of the injured he has noted down in the MLC register and he has identified the said document as Ex.R1. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the above witness and suggested that he has recorded who was riding the vehicle and the number of the vehicle after laps (sic lapse) of 45 days to which he has admitted but however, the counsel for the petitioner has cross-examined the above witness and during the said cross-examination he has admitted that he has noted down as per the say of the injured and further he has been re-

¶40

3 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:7700 MFA No. 1501 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

examined by the counsel for the petitioner wherein, he has re-asserted that due to mistake he has deposed instead of stating 30-45 minutes he has deposed about 30-45 days, the vehicle number and the rider name has been mentioned but, the counsel for the respondent No.2 has not further crossexamined the witness on this point. The respondent No.2 has also examined his official as RW2 and the said RW2 who has admitted the existence of the policy but, he has contended that it was subject to the conditions of the policy and the documents produced by the petitioner himself shows that history of RTA skid and fall from two wheeler while on Kunigal-Tumkur road and the injured was rider of the two wheeler. From this it is clear that the petitioner was the rider of the alleged vehicle in question thereby, since the petitioner himself was a rider and who is not a third party and in order to get the compensation from this respondent, the petitioner colluded with police created and concocted the documents against the respondent No.2 and changed the rider of the motorcycle as pillion rider and thereby, the collusion is made out. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the compensation. Hence, he has prayed to dismiss the petition against the respondent No.2. He has also produced authorization and copy of the policy and got it marked as Ex.R2. The counsel for the petitioner has cross-examined the above witness and suggested that there was no any such document produced by the respondent No.2 to establish that the accident was happen due to self fall and there was no any such document that the documents were created and only with an intention to avoid the payment of compensation, they are falsely deposing that the documents were created so as to show that the petitioner is a pillion rider. For these suggestions, RW2 has denied.”

¶44

[Emphasis supplied]

¶45

7. Thus the respondent’s witness himself agree that the vehicle number was written down and the injuries were

¶46

4 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:7700 MFA No. 1501 of 2020

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

written as per the deposition. This Court is therefore prima facie, not inclined to interfere with this finding”.

¶50

Learned counsel for the parties today submit that in pursuance of the order dated 19.01.2026, the parties have settled all their disputes inter se and are filing a Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶51

The salient features of the Compromise Petition are that

¶52

the parties have come to a settlement with regard to the amount of compensation payable which is set out in paragraph

¶53

2 of the settlement terms set out below:

¶54

“2. It is submitted that both the Applicant and the 1st Respondent who is the claimant before the Tribunal in M.V.C No. 1398/2015 had due deliberation and both 1st Respondent and the Insurance Company have come to a settlement with regard to the compensation amount which is as follows:

¶55

1.	Loss of future income (Rs.9000/-30%X12 monthsX14 multiplier	Rs.4,53,600/-
2.	Pain and sufferings	Rs.50,000/-
3.	Food, nourishment, conveyance and miscellaneous expenditure.	Rs.20,000/-
4.	Medical expenses	Rs.13,484/-

¶56

5 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:7700 MFA No. 1501 of 2020

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

5.	Loss of amenities	Rs.40,000/-
6.	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.27,000
	*Total*	*Rs.6,04,084/-*

¶60

Both the Appellant and the 1st Respondent have agreed that the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the 1st Respondent i.e., a sum of RS. 7,08,604/- may be modified from to Rs. 6,04,048 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of M.V.C. No. 1398/2015.

¶61

3. The parties submit that there is no collusion or coercion in filing the compromise petition”.

¶62

4.1 An affidavit of Respondent No.1 filed in support of the Compromise Petition has also been placed on record.

¶63

In view of the settlement between the parties, the Impugned Award is modified to award of compensation in the sum of Rs.6,04,084-00.

¶64

Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following directions:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The appeal is allowed.

¶67

(ii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated

¶68

05.10.2019 in MVC No.1398/2015 passed by the

¶69

6 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:7700 MFA No. 1501 of 2020

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur is modified to the extent that the appellant/petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,04,084-00 along with

¶73

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to compensation that has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶74

(iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed.

¶75

(iv) The Respondent No.1 is permitted to file an application for withdrawal of the amounts in terms of the amended decree before the learned Trial Court.

¶76

(v) The balance awarded amount inclusive of upto date interest may be withdrawn by the Insurance Company by filing an appropriate application and the said withdrawal may be done electronically.

¶77