[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Mohammad Faraz on 8 December, 2025
-1-
MFA No. 94 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 2668 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2015 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2668 OF 2015 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 94/2015
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, VISHNU PRAKASH BLDG.,
COURT ROAD UDUPI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
2ND FLOOR,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX,
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-580 020.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMMAD FARAZ
24 YEARS,
S/O LATE MOHAMMED HASHIM,
R/O "FATHIMA MANZIL" NO.4-535,
9TH CROSS, GARADIMAJAL POST,
KRODASHRAM, THENKANIDIYOOR VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576 105.
-2-
MFA No. 94 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 2668 of 2015
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S UNIROYAL MARINE EXPORTS LTD.,
11/9, POST VENGALAM, KOYILANDY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
KERALA-673 305.
3. UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD.,
CALICUT REP BY ITS NEAREST
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
JEWEL PLAZA, OPP: SRINIDHI MEDICAL,
NEAR CHITTARANJAN CIRCLE,
UDUPI-576 101,
4. SMT. FARZANA
44 YEARS,
W/O LATE MOHAMMED HASHIM,
R/O "FATHIMA MANZIL" 9TH CROSS,
LAKSHMINAGAR, POST KODAVOOR,
UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI S SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R-4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
16TH SEPTEMBER 2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.860/2010 ON THE
FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T. AT
UDUPI AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
-3-
MFA No. 94 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 2668 of 2015
IN MFA NO. 2668/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAMMAD FARAZ
S/O LATE MOHAMMAD HASHIM
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT FATHIMA MANZIL,
D.NO.4-535
9TH CROSS, GARADIMAJAL,
POST KRODASHRAM
THENKANIDIYOOR VILLAGE,
UDUPI DISTRICT-34.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S UNIROYAL MARINE EXPORTS LTD
11/9,
POST VENGALAM KOYILANDY
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
KERALA-76.
2. THE UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD
CALICUT, REP. BY ITS NEAREST
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
JEWEL PLAZA,
OPP: SRINIDHI MEDICAL
NEAR CHITTARANJAN CIRCLE,
UDUPI-78.
3. SMT. FARZANA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O LATE MOHAMMAD HASHIM
R/AT FATHIMA MANZIL,
9TH CROSS,
LAKSHMI NAGAR,
POST KODAVOOR
UDUPI-78.
-4-
MFA No. 94 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 2668 of 2015
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
DIVSIONAL OFFICE
THE ORIENTAL INS. CO. LTD
2ND FLOOR,
VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDING
COURT ROAD,
UDUPI-78.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI S. SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1)
OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN M.V.C.NO.860/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT UDUPI, PERUSE THE SAME, ALLOW
THE APPEAL, MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
16TH SEPTEMBER 2014 BY ALLOWING THE RESTRICTED CLAIM
OF RS.15,00,000/- AS PER THE CLAIM PETITION TOGETHER
WITH COSTS AND INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF CLAIM PETITION TILL THE DATE
OF THE DEPOSIT, PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS
COURT DEEM FIT TO PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
MFA No. 94 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 2668 of 2015
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
MFA No.94/2015 is filed under section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as 'the
MV Act' for short), by the Oriental Insurance Company to
allow the present appeal and modify the judgment and
award dated 16.09.2014 passed in MVC No.860/2010 on
the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional
MACT at Udupi ('the Tribunal' for short).
MFA No.2668/2015 is filed under section 173(1) of
the MV Act to allow the appeal and dismiss the appeal filed
by the Insurance Company in MFA No.94/2015.
2. The appellant in MFA No.94/2015 is the
respondent No.4 before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1
herein is the petitioner/claimant before the Tribunal and
respondents No.2 to 4 herein are the respondents No.1 to
3 before the Tribunal.
The appellant/respondents in MFA No.2668/2015
herein are the claimant/respondents before the Tribunal.
3. The claim petition is filed under section 166 of
the MV Act against the respondents claiming compensation
of Rs.22,10,420/- towards the injuries sustained by the
claimant in the motor vehicle accident.
The brief facts of the case are that:
4. On 26.09.2009, the claimant was traveling beside
his father, who was driving lorry No.KA-20-987 from
Kozhikode to Udupi, when a goods vehicle bearing No.KL-
11-B-4013, allegedly driven at high speed in a rash and
negligent manner, swerved to the right and dashed with
their lorry. The father of the claimant died at the spot and
the claimant suffered grievous injuries and was
immediately shifted to Calicut Government Hospital and
claims loss of income, medical expenses and loss of future
earning capacity.
5. The respondent No.1 appeared through counsel
and filed a written statement denying the allegations and
contending that the petition is false, frivolous, vexatious,
and unsustainable in law and on facts. The respondent
No.2 appeared through counsel but did not file any written
statement, while respondent No.3, though served with
summons, remained absent and was placed ex parte.
6. The respondent No.4 filed a written statement
asserting that the petition is not maintainable and contains
false claims, though it admitted that the insurance policy
for the vehicle was valid at the time of the accident. It
further contended that the driver of the alleged vehicle did
not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time
of the incident, and therefore the insurer is not liable. The
respondent No.4 also filed an application under Section
170 of the MV Act and sought dismissal of the petition.
7. In order to substantiate the claim the petitioner
examined himself as PW-1 and one other as PW-2 and got
marked 12 documents as per Ex.P-1 to P-12. The
respondents have not examined and not marked any
document as witness.
8. On careful perusal of the oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal framed the issues and the learned
Tribunal awarded Rs.4,65,920/- with interest at the rate of
8% per annum. Further, respondents No.1 and 2 are
exonerated from the liability and the respondents No.3-
Smt.Farzana and 4-Oriental Insurance Company i.e., the
owner of the lorry No.KA-20-987, and the Insurer were
jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
in MFA No.94/2015 would contend that the learned
Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidentiary
record and proceeded on erroneous assumptions regarding
the claimant's status in the insured vehicle. The material
on record, including the claimant's own documents, does
not establish that he was employed as a cleaner and the
Tribunal overlooked inconsistencies that demonstrate he
was traveling unauthorised in a goods vehicle.
10. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in
classifying the claimant as a third party, notwithstanding
his having stepped into the shoes of his deceased father as
one of the owner of the lorry in question along with his
mother as legal representative. Such misclassification has
improperly disentitled him to the third-party
compensation. It is also submitted that the amounts
awarded under the various heads are exorbitant,
unsupported by any documentary evidence and
disproportionate to the pleadings and proof on record.
11. It is contended by the learned counsel
appearing or respondent No.1 herein/claimant in MFA
No.94/2015, that during arguments on 10.11.2025, the
learned counsel for the appellant-Oriental Insurance
Company, fairly conceded that, as the insurer had neither
adduced evidence nor examined any witness in support of
its defence, the appeal may be dismissed and the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal be confirmed.
It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on
26.09.2009, that the police investigation culminated in a
charge sheet against the driver of lorry bearing reg.
- 10 -
No.KA-20-987, and that the insurer has not challenged the
same.
12. The insurer has also not rebutted, by any
cogent material, the claimant's assertion that he was
working as a cleaner in the said lorry, whereas the police
records and Exs.P1 to P3 clearly establish that the accident
resulted from the negligent driving of the lorry bearing
reg. No.KA-20-987. In view of the MV Act being a
beneficial legislation requiring application of the principle
of preponderance of probability, the Tribunal rightly
fastened liability on the appellant and rightly awarded
compensation.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant in MFA
No.2668/2015 would contend seeking enhancement of
compensation. Having sustained multiple grievous injuries,
including operated comminuted open mid-third fracture of
the right femur, operated fracture of the right patella,
fracture of the right medial malleolus and fracture of the
right talus. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in
- 11 -
assessing disability at only 13% despite PW-2, the treating
doctor, certifying 29% as per Ex.P10, which remained
unchallenged in cross-examination. It is further urged that
the Tribunal wrongly assessed the monthly income at
Rs.4,000/-, ignoring the claimant's uncontroverted
assertion of earning Rs.200/- per day (Rs.6,000/- per
month) and the income chart of the Legal Services
Authority.
14. It is further argued that although 173 medical
bills amounting to Rs.2,80,570/- were produced under
Ex.P7, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,26,000/-, without
assigning any reasons, warranting grant of the full
amount. It is also contended that having been an inpatient
for more than three months with four fractures, the
compensation awarded under the heads of amenities, pain
and suffering and loss of income during the laid-up period
is inadequate. Specifically, under Lok Adalat norms, pain
and suffering ought to be quantified at Rs.15,000/- per
fracture, totalling Rs.60,000/-, and the laid-up period
requires upward revision in view of evidence of PW-2.
- 12 -
15. In light of the nature of the injuries, prolonged
hospitalization, multiple surgeries, continuous treatment
and unrebutted medical and income evidence, the
appellant submits that the assessment made by the
Tribunal is erroneous and warrants appropriate
enhancement under all relevant heads.
16. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the material on record.
17. On perusal of the evidence on record, it appears
that the appellant-Insurance Company in MFA No.94/2015
failed to substantiate their grounds of appeal and also
their prayer to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
18. In so far as MFA No.2668/2015 filed by the
claimant for enhancement of compensation is concerned,
the appellant failed to substantiate the grounds urged in
the appeal for enhancement of compensation. Therefore,
the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned Award and
awarded a sum of Rs.4,65,920/- along with interest at the
rate of 8% p.a., which is just and reasonable. Hence,
- 13 -
there are no merits to interfere with the impugned Award.
Hence, the following order is passed:
i) MFA No.94/2015 is dismissed.
ii) MFA No.2668/2015 filed by the
claimant is also dismissed.
iii) The Judgment and Award dated
16.09.2014 passed in MVC No.860/2010 on
the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT at Udupi, is affirmed.
iv) Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the compensation amount within eight
weeks from the date of receipt of this
Judgment and Award.
v) Claimant is directed to withdraw the
amount in terms of the Award.
vi) Amount in deposit, if any, along with
accrued interest shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal for disbursement.
- 14 -
v) Registry is directed to transmit the
records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
BNV
