Karnataka High Court
Sri.P.R.Puttappa vs Smt. Savitha on 25 October, 2025
-1-
MFA No. 7648 of 2018
C/W MFA No.2578 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7648 OF 2018 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2578 OF 2019 (MV-D)
IN MFA No.7648 of 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI.P.R.PUTTAPPA
S/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT DODDAPATTANAGERE VILLAGE
KADUR TALUK-577140
CHICKMAGALUR DIST.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH D.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SAVITHA
W/O LATE KUMAR @ MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
2. MASTER SWAMY
S/O LATE KUMAR @ MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
3. KUM SOWMYA
D/O LATE KUMAR @ MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS
-2-
MFA No. 7648 of 2018
C/W MFA No.2578 of 2019
4. SMT PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
AND REPT. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NG
R1 AND ALL ARE R/AT DOMBARAHATTI COLONY
MATHIGATTA VILLAGE, HIRISAVE HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.S. KAILASH SHANKAR AND
SRI A.ANANDA THEERTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP.BY -R1)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
PERTAINING TO THE CASE ON HAND FROM THE FILE OF
COURT/MACT BELOW AND PERUSE THE SAME AND ALLOW
THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 11.12.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.5318/2016 BY THE
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, BENGALURU AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION OF
RESPONDENTS FILED IN MVC NO.5318/2016 ON THE FILE OF
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT AT BENGALURU WITH
COST AND ETC.,
In MFA No.2578 of 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SAVITHA
W/O LATE KUMAR @ MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
2. SWAMY
S/O LATE KUMAR @ MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
3. SWOMYA
D/O LATE KUMAR @ MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS
-3-
MFA No. 7648 of 2018
C/W MFA No.2578 of 2019
4. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 MINORS
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
DOMBARAHATTI COLONY
MATHIGATTA VILLAGE
HIRISAVE HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATTNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI P R PUTTAPPA
S/O RANGAPPA
AGE IN MAJOR
R/AT DODDAPATANAGERE VILLAGE
AT POST
KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH D.C., ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORD
IN X ADDL. JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES MEMBER
M.A.C.T. BENGALURU (SCCH-16) IN M.V.C.NO.5318/2016
DATED 11.12.2017 PERUSE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED AND SET ASIDE, MODIFIED, AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN THIS APPEAL AND GRANT
SUCH OTHER RELIEFS UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
-4-
MFA No. 7648 of 2018
C/W MFA No.2578 of 2019
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
The MFA No.7648/2018 is filed seeking to set aside the judgment and award dated 11.12.2017, passed in MVC No.5318/2016 on the file of the Small Causes and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (herein after referred to as 'the tribunal' for short) consequently dismiss the claim petition of the respondents in MVC No.5318/2016.
The MFA No.2578/2019 is filed seeking to set aside, modify and enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The appellant herein in MFA No.7648/2018 is the respondent No.1 in MVC No.5318/2016 and the respondents herein are the claimants No.1 to 4 in MVC No.5318/2016.
The appellants herein in MFA No.2578/2019 are the claimants in MVC No.5318/2016 and the respondent herein is the respondent in MVC No.5318/2016. -5- MFA No. 7648 of 2018 C/W MFA No.2578 of 2019
3. Though the matters are coming up for admission, with the consent of counsels for both the parties, they are taken up for final disposal.
The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-
4. On 24.04.2016 at around 1:45 p.m., a road traffic accident occurred involving Kumar, who was traveling on a tractor bearing No.KA-18-TA-3053 near Shekar's Farm in Kaddu Taluk. The tractor driver suddenly applied the brakes suddenly near Shekarappa's farm, due to which Kumar fell down and sustain injuries to the chest. He was first treated at Holikan Hospital, Chikmagalur, then shifted to Janapriya Hospital, Hassan, in which he was taking treatment as inpatient. During the course of treatment, he eventually succumbed to the injuries. Following the accident, the claimants filed MVC No.5318/2016 at the Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru, claiming Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally as compensation with interest.
-6-MFA No. 7648 of 2018 C/W MFA No.2578 of 2019
5. The claimant was examined as PW1 and marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. Wherein the respondents neither examined nor marked any documents.
6. The respondent no.1-Owner of the vehicle was initially set ex-parte for not appearing despite summons, but later the ex-parte order was set aside. The respondent No.1 was informed by his counsel that he did not need to attend every hearing, and he was unaware of the progress of the case until he received a notice in August 2018 from the Executing Court in Execution No.34/2018, which revealed that a compensation award had been passed against him.
7. Upon learning about the award, the respondent No.1 requested a certified copy of the judgment and award on 08.08.2018, which was issued on 28.08.2018. After reviewing the documents, and on the advice of his counsel, the appellant filed an appeal. The appellant contends that total compensation of Rs.12,22,000/- -7- MFA No. 7648 of 2018 C/W MFA No.2578 of 2019 awarded with 9% interest is exorbitant, arguing that there was no evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month and that the compensation on other heads was also inflated.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.7648/2018 that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the appellant could not effectively contest the matter and produce relevant documents due to lack of communication from his counsel regarding further proceedings, resulting in an ex-parte award fixing liability upon him. The Tribunal further erred in proceeding on the assumption that the deceased Kumar sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident and in relying upon insufficient evidence placed by the respondents, thereby erroneously fastening liability on the appellant who is a poor agriculturist.
9. It is further contended that the Tribunal has, without any evidence, presumed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- as a Coolie, in the absence of -8- MFA No. 7648 of 2018 C/W MFA No.2578 of 2019 any documentary evidence from the respondents and after deducting 1/4th has arbitrarily awarded Rs.11,52,000/- towards loss of dependency apart from awarding excessive compensation under other heads, making the total compensation highly exorbitant. The appellant has been illegally burdened to pay compensation for no fault attributable to him and the award under appeal is wholly unsustainable.
10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants in MFA No.2578/2019 that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.12,22,000/- with 9% interest per annum, which is challenged as inadequate on multiple legal grounds. Firstly, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, while the deceased, being a Coolie, was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects, despite the deceased being only 34 years old at the time of death, warranting an addition of 40% to the assessed income.
-9-MFA No. 7648 of 2018 C/W MFA No.2578 of 2019
11. It is also contended that the compensation under conventional heads is on the lower side, ignoring the fact that the appellants, being the wife, minor children, and parent of the deceased, were wholly dependent on his income. The interest awarded at 9% is also on the lower side and does not reflect prevailing standards in similar cases.
12. The Insurance Company has been deleted as per the Court Order dated 07.11.2017. Hence, the Insurance Company is not made party in the present connected appeals.
13. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.
14. Having considered the contentions advanced and perused the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants filed MVC No.5318/2016 against the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company. The owner of the vehicle/appellant was made exparte and the Tribunal has passed the impugned Order dated
- 10 -
MFA No. 7648 of 2018C/W MFA No.2578 of 2019 11.12.2017, in MVC No.5318/2016 on the file of the Small Causes and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, against the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company. Further it is observed that the owner of the vehicle/appellant has filed MFA No.7648/2018 against the impugned Order of the Tribunal and particularly, raised objections that the appellant could not effectively contest the matter and produce relevant documents due to lack of communication from his counsel regarding further proceedings, resulting in an ex-parte award fixing liability upon him. The Tribunal further erred in proceeding on the assumption that the deceased Kumar sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident and in relying upon insufficient evidence placed by the respondents, thereby erroneously fastening liability on the appellant who is a poor agriculturist. Further, this Court has observed that the appellant has suffered a decree before the Tribunal and he is before the Court. The appellant intended to produce a document under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC to show that he has paid Rs.6,00,000/- in two installments. But on
- 11 -
MFA No. 7648 of 2018C/W MFA No.2578 of 2019 perusal of copies of the documents, it is evident that the stamp paper was obtained on 03.05.2016 itself. Both these documents were executed on the same day by the same party. When Rs.6,00,000/- was paid on the same day at the same time, there was no need for execution of two documents. The learned counsel for respondents disputes the genuineness of these documents itself. Further, the appellant/owner was directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal within fifteen days from the date of the Order.
15. On hearing the above submissions of both the counsels, perusing the material placed on record, it is observed that the accident took place on 23.04.2016, MVC is filed by the claimant on 23.08.2016, and the documents filed by the appellant herein showing that the compromise deed was executed between the claimant and the appellant herein on 03.05.2016. In view of the above discussion, it requires that the matter has to be remitted back for fresh consideration as there is a serious infirmity caused to the owner of the vehicle that he has neither
- 12 -
MFA No. 7648 of 2018C/W MFA No.2578 of 2019 contested the matter and nor filed any objections before the Tribunal.
MFA No.7648/2018:
16. In view of the observation made, MFA No.7648/2018 is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration with the following direction:-
i) Appellant is directed to file ex-parte decree order and file his defence before the Tribunal.
ii) Both the parties are given opportunity to appear before the Tribunal to adduce evidence.
iii) The Tribunal is directed to consider the following points:
a) Whether the claim of the appellant is correct?
b) Whether the claimant has played fraud by suppressing the facts of the settlement?
- 13 -
MFA No. 7648 of 2018C/W MFA No.2578 of 2019
c) Whether the claim of the respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle is correct?
d) Whether the documents filed by the
appellant before this Court in MFA
No.2578/2019, are proved or not?
iv) After hearing both the parties and considering the above points, the Tribunal is directed to pass the appropriate Award, in accordance with law, not later than six months from the date of receipt of this Judgment. MFA No.2578/2019:
17. MFA No.2578/2019 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Since the connected appeal in MFA No.7648/2018 has been filed by the Owner of the Tractor bearing No.KA-18/TA-3053 and the same has been allowed, impugned Judgment and Award has been set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal for fresh consideration, MFA No.2578/2019 does not survive for consideration.
- 14 -
MFA No. 7648 of 2018C/W MFA No.2578 of 2019
In view of the above discussion, MFA
No.2578/2019 is dismissed.
Sd/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
BNV