Karnataka High Court
Sri.Guruvappa vs Sri Ujjappa on 6 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
MFA No. 5481 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5481 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI.GURUVAPPA
S/O HULAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
COOLIE WORK,
R/O SHAMSHIPURA VILLAGE,
HARIHAR TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 601.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADISH G. KUMBAR AND
SRI.B M HALA SWAMY.,ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI UJJAPPA
S/O GANESHAPPA,
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA
Location: HIGH COURT OF DRIVER OF TRACTOR,
KARNATAKA
R/O SHAMSHIPURA VILLAGE,
HARIHAR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 601.
2. SRI. GANGADHARAPPA
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OWNER OF TRACTOR,
R/O SHAMSHIPURA VILLAGE,
HARIHAR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 601.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
MFA No. 5481 of 2014
HC-KAR
3. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NO.34/3,
M.M.K. COMPLEX,
AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD,
P.J. EXTENSION,
DAVANAGERE-477 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI ADVOCATE FOR R3,
R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:4.2.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.108/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL.MACT, HARIHAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant against the
judgment and award dated 04.02.2014 passed in
MVC.No.108/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT, Harihar (for short the 'the Tribunal').
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
3. Respondent No.1 is driver of the vehicle,
respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is
insurer of the offending vehicle tractor.
4. It is the case of the claimant that on
04.01.2011, when he was going by the side of the road, a
tractor bearing registration No.KA-17-TA-8832 driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit him and as a
result of which he fell down and sustained injuries. He
took treatment and spent huge amounts and is now
suffering from a permanent disability. It is also contended
that he was aged about 60 years at the time of accident
and he was an agriculturist and was earning Rs.15,000/-
to Rs.20,000/- per month. With these reasons, prayed to
award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear before
the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 - insurer denied the
contents of the claim petition. It was further contended
that as per the medical records, the claimant had fallen
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
from the tractor and sustained injuries. Therefore, he is
not entitled to claim compensation. It is further contended
that the insurer's liability is restricted to terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, including the
requirement for the driver of the said tractor to possess a
valid and effective driving license. On these grounds, the
insurer prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. The Tribunal on the basis of the rival
contentions of the parties, framed the necessary issues.
7. The claimant to prove his case examined five
witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5 and marked documents Exs.1
to 16 and closed his evidence. Respondent No.3 examined
two witnesses as RW.1 and RW.2 and marked Exs.R1 to
R3 and closed its evidence.
8. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and
appreciating the evidence on record, held that the
claimant had sustained injuries in the accident . However,
the Tribunal also found that the accident did not occur as
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
alleged in the claim petition but rather resulted from a fall
from the tractor. Therefore, exonerated respondent No.3
from paying the compensation. Assessing the materials
placed on record, the Tribunal awarded following amount
of compensation:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs)
1. Pain and suffering 30,000
2. Medical expenses 40,884
3. Medical attendant charges and 5,000
transportation
4. Loss of income during laid up period 15,000
(Rs.(Rs.5,000 x 3)
5. Discomfort in future life 15,000
6. Loss of future earning capacity due to 54,000
permanent disability.
Total Rs.1,59,884
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
respondent No.3.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on the
grounds of appeal, contended that PW-3 to 5 are the eye
witnesses to the accident. They have clearly stated the
date of the accident and that PW-1 was hit by the tractor.
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
Respondent examined RW-1, who has corrected the
mistake stated by the claimant in the hospital. He further
contended that due to pain and suffering, the claimant
initially gave incorrect information and thereafter corrected
the same, this is reflected in Ex.R1. This, however cannot
be a valid ground to disbelieve the case of the petitioner
or reject his contention. During the cross-examination of
PW-1, the occurrence of the accident was not at all denied.
Similarly, in the cross-examination of PWs-3 to 5, nothing
was brought out to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore,
the contention of the injured that he fell from the tractor
and sustained injuries is not acceptable. The Tribunal,
however, erred in accepting the same and exonerated
respondent No.3 from the liability to pay compensation.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant further
contended that the amount of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is inadequate. Therefore, he prayed for the
re-calculation of the compensation and for awarding a just
and reasonable amount.
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3
vehemently contended that the evidence of RW-1 reveals
that he has manipulated the records solely to help the
claimant seek compensation from respondent No.3. He
argued that RW1 had no authority to correct any mistake
in the statement given by injured or the person who
accompanied him to the hospital. Even during cross-
examination by respondent No.3, it was admitted that the
history of the injury was not recorded by him, but was
based on the information provided by three other
individuals. Nevertheless, he corrected the statement and
claimed that he had every authority to do the same.
However, the said contention of RW-1 raises serious
doubts regarding the facts of the accident as stated in the
FIR. When wrong information is provided, facts are
suppressed and records are manipulated, the claimant is
not entitled for compensation. This fact was rightly
accepted by the Tribunal which exonerated the insurer
from the liability to pay compensation. He relied on the
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North
West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs.
Gourabai and others1. In this case also, the facts are
similar, therefore, judgment laid down is applicable to the
facts of the present case, and he prayed for confirmation
of the award passed by the Tribunal in respect of liability
of respondent No.3 and for dismissal of the appeal.
13. The following questions arises for consideration:
i. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that
accident had not taken in the manner as stated in
the complaint as well as in the claim petition?
ii. Whether the claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
iii. What order?
14. Point No.1 : In the claim petition, the
claimant stated that when he was traveling to
Shamshipura Village from Harihar city at 10.30 a.m, at
that time, a tractor came from behind and hit him, due to
(2009) 15 SCC 165
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
which, he sustained injuries. Respondent No.3 in the
written statement at paragraph No.9(2) has stated that
the petitioner was traveling in the said tractor bearing
registration No.KA-17-TA-8832 and fell from the said
tractor and thereby sustained injuries. Thereafter, OPD
card and MLC extract were manipulated. It is not in
dispute that the claimant sustained injuries involving the
said vehicle; However, the manner in which the accident
occurred is seriously disputed by respondent No.3.
15. Ex.P1 is the FIR, which was registered on
05.01.2011 at around 6.00 p.m. The incident however,
had taken place on 04.01.2011 at around 10.30 a.m.,
indicating a delay of one day in filing the complaint. No
explanation is provided for this delay. As per the claimant,
along with him three others i.e., PWs-3 to 5 were traveling
on the same road and they witnessed the incident.
Despite this, it appears that neither the claimant, the
witnesses, nor PW1 made any immediate effort to lodge
the complaint. Initially, the claimant went to S.S.Institute
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Davanagere.
Ex.R2 shows that they reached the hospital around 12.45
a.m., on 04.01.2011. RW-1 admitted that he had deleted
the earlier words written in Ex.R2 i.e. 'fall from' and added
'hit by tractor'. Ex.R1 is the out-patient card. The said
document also reflects this correction and over writing i.e.,
'fall from' is deleted and 'hit by' tractor is mentioned. In
this regard, respondent No.3 examined RW-1 - Dr.
Ramesh Kotvan, who had stated that on 04.01.2011
around 2.20 p.m. he provided treatment to claimant
Guruvappa. The said Guruvappa visited the hospital with
a history of injuries allegedly caused as a result of being
'hit by tractor'. Prior to his statement, he had registered
his name in the OPD, wherein it was mentioned that he fell
from the tractor. He further stated that in Ex.R2, earlier it
was recorded as 'fall from tractor' and thereafter he
himself corrected it as 'hit by the tractor'. It is also
pertinent to note that in his cross-examination by
respondent No.3, RW-1 stated that he had enquired with
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
the patient as well as with the person, who accompanied
him, and he noted the injury history is in Ex.R1 based on
that enquiry. He also admitted that although he had not
originally written the history of the injury he subsequently
corrected it as 'hit by tractor' instead of 'fall from tractor'.
He further stated that since the persons who accompanied
the injured had informed him that the victim was 'hit by
the tractor' and not that he had 'fallen from the tractor,
he made the correction accordingly. He did not receive
any written request from the injured or his relatives. His
authority extended only to correcting the statement. He
sent a medical intimation wherein it was mentioned that
while traveling in the tractor he fell from it and sustained
injuries.
16. It is pertinent to note that PW-1, in his
evidence, has not state that he provided wrong
information to the doctor. Initially he stated that while
traveling in the tractor he fell down and sustained injuries.
However, he later corrected himself and stated before the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
doctor that while walking along the side of the road, a
tractor hit against him and that he sustained injuries.
Similarly, in the evidence of PWs.3, 4 and 5 and in their
cross-examination, none of them stated that PW-1 had
previously told the doctor that the entry in the OPD,
indicating he fell from the tractor, was incorrect and that
he actually was hit by the tractor.
Therefore, the statement made by RW-1 is not
collaborated either by PW-1 or PWs-3 to 5.
17. Normally, in the Medico legal cases, if there is
any change in the statement, the concerned person who is
authorized to record entries in the MLC register must
mention the statement given by the victim or the person
accompanying him. Such an authority has no right to
delete or over write the entries, especially when the
statement has already been recorded. In the present case,
RW1 had not originally written the history of injury but
merely corrected the prior entry. He did not even enquire
with the person who initially gave the statement before
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
making the correction. As a result the sanctity of MLC
register was compromised, which was otherwise a credible
evidence. Under such circumstances, RW-1's act of
altering the record based on the statements from others
and not by the victim is neither proper nor justifiable.
Therefore, it appears that the amendment was made as an
after thought, possibly with the intention of strengthening
the claimants case for compensation. In addition to that,
there is delay of one day in registering the FIR. RW-1 has
stated that immediately after admission of the victim and
before making any correction to the OPD receipt, he had
sent the intimation to the concerned police station. If that
is the case, it raises the question, as to why the police
remained quite. PW-1 lodged the complaint only on
05.01.2011 at around 6.00 p.m. According to the version
in the complaint, the claimant was admitted as in-patient
in the same hospital. These circumstance create a
reasonable doubt that, just to claim compensation from
the insurer, a new case was made out by the claimant and
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
he had not approached the Court with clean hands. The
Tribunal though accepted such possibility, did not discuss
these facts in light of the relevant material on record, yet
has arrived at a correct conclusion. In view of the said
reasons, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is
acceptable. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the
affirmative.
18. The injured had sustained fracture of the left
ankle. Medical evidence including the x-ray and the
testimony of PW-2 corroborated this fact, which was
accepted by the Tribunal and not seriously disputed by the
respondent. As per the evidence of PW-2, the claimant
has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent
of 38% to the whole body. Admittedly, he had not treated
the claimant at the time of accident. However,
considering the materials available on record, the
permanent disability by which the claimant is suffering
was rightly accepted by the Tribunal at 10% and it does
not call for any interference. Accordingly, the claimant
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
was earning Rs.15,000 to 20,000/- per month in
agricultural activities as well as coolie and milk vending.
The Tribunal has taken income as Rs.5,000/- per month.
There is no reliable materials on record to believe that the
claimant was earning Rs.15,000 to 20,000/-. Therefore,
notional income of the claimant has to be considered. As
per the chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Services
Authority, the notional income of the victim of the accident
of the year 2011 is Rs.6,500/- and the same could be
applied to the facts of the present case. There is no
dispute regarding the multiplier '9' since the age of the
claimant was 60 years at the time of the accident.
Accordingly, the income of the claimant is taken as
Rs.6,500/- per month. Looking at the contention of the
appellant, the compensation awarded under the head 'loss
of future earning capacity due to permanent disability,
attendant charges, special diet and loss of income during
laid up period and loss of amenities which appears to be
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
on the lower side, which calls for interference by this
Court.
19. Accordingly, the following amount of
compensation is recalculated and enhanced as under:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs)
1. Pain and suffering 30,000
2. Medical expenses 40,884
3. Special diet, attendant charges, 25,000
conveyance charges
4. Loss of income during laid up period 19,500
(Rs.(Rs.6,500 x 3)
5. Loss of amenities 25,000
6. Loss of future earning capacity due to 70,200
permanent disability.
(Rs.6500x12x9x10%)
Total 2,10,584
Awarded by the Tribunal 1,59,884
Enhancement Rs.50,700/-
20. The claimant is entitled for enhanced amount of
Rs.50,700/- along with interest @ 6% p.a on the enhanced
amount of compensation. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is partly allowed.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
ii. The impugned judgment and award dated
04.02.2014 passed in MVC.No.108/2011 is
modified.
iii. The claimant is entitled to an enhancement
of Rs.50,700/- in addition to the amount awarded
by the Tribunal with interest @ 6% p.a from the
date of the petition till its realization over the
amount awarded by the Tribunal.
iv. In the above said paragraph, it is held that,
the claimant while traveling in the tractor fell and
sustained injuries. Therefore, respondent No.2 -
owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the
compensation. Respondent No.1 is the driver and
hence, respondent No.2 - owner of the vehicle is
liable to pay the compensation.
v. Remaining portion of the award passed by
the Tribunal regarding release and deposit are not
disturbed.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19444
HC-KAR
vi. Registry is directed to send back the records
to the Tribunal along with the copy of this order.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
AG
