Karnataka High Court
A. Prakash vs S.E. Ravishankar on 24 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12604
MFA No. 5419 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5419 OF 2014(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
A. PRAKASH,
S/O. ESWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SINGAPURA VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. S.E. RAVISHANKAR,
S/O. S.B. ESWARAPPA,
AGE MAJOR,
R/O. SONDEKOLA VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 501,
OWNER OF MARUTHI OMINI
Digitally NO.KA-16-M-1563.
signed by
SUVARNA T 2. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
Location: CO. LTD.,
HIGH REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
COURT OF DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
KARNATAKA 34/3, MMK COMPLEX,
AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD,
P.J.EXTENSION,
DAVANGERE-577 002.
3. A.E. MALLIKARJUNA,
S/O. ESWARAPPA,
MAJOR,
R/O. SINGAPURA VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK,
OWNER OF HERO HONDA MOTOR CYCLE
BEARING NO.KA-16-U-33032.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12604
MFA No. 5419 of 2014
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
B.M. COMPLEX,
LAKSHMI BAZAR,
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
BY SMT. SUJATHA PANDIT S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 11.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC.
NO.294/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CJM, MACT-3, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order passed in MVC.No.294/2012 dated
11.03.2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM and MACT-
III at Chitradurga, the claimant is before this Court questioning
the issue of liability as well as seeking enhancement of the
compensation.
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 21.06.2010 at
about 4.15 pm., he was going towards Godabanal Village from
Singapura as pillion rider on a motorcycle which was being
ridden by its rider, near Rangaswamy land, at Ganjigunte
NC: 2025:KHC:12604
Village, at that point of time, the driver of Maruti Omni van
came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without
following traffic rules and dashed to the motorcycle, a result of
accident occurred and the claimant fell down and sustained
grievous injuries. According to the claimant, he had sustained
fracture. As per the evidence of the doctor, the disability to the
limb is 35% and 17% to the whole body. The Tribunal had
taken 15% as disability and the income is considered at an
amount of Rs.4,000/- per month and granted the
compensation.
3. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had granted
the compensation as per the table given below:
Sl. Description Amount in
No. rupees
1. Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/-
2. Permanent disability (15% of
Rs.4,000/-X12X13) Rs.93,600/-
3. Treatment expenses Rs.66,170/-
4. Loss of income during
treatment and rest period Rs.16,000/-
(Rs.4,000/-X4 months)
5. Attendant, nourishment and Rs.10,000/-
incidental charges
6. Conveyance Rs.5,000/-
7. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.2,40,770/-
(Rounded off to Rs.2,40,800/-)
NC: 2025:KHC:12604
4. Altogether the Tribunal had granted compensation
of an amount of Rs.2,40,800/-. Aggrieved thereby the appellant
is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.
5. When it comes to the liability, the Tribunal had
observed that Ex.R4 clearly reveals that after investigation, the
police found that the claimant himself was riding the motor
vehicle and due to his negligence he dashed the same to the
roadside edge and fell down and he has not examined any
witnesses who have seen the alleged accident to establish that
he was not riding the motorcycle and he was not negligent.
Admittedly, he is not holding a driving license to ride the
motorcycle. When the police records are against the petitioner
and when he has not examined any witness who has seen the
incident, his self-serving statement cannot be believed and
accepted by the Court. His evidence is contrary to the
investigation made by the police. Even on perusal of the
judgment passed in criminal case, it does not disclose that the
driver of the car was responsible for accident. Only on the
ground that the material placed is not satisfactory, the
petitioner was acquitted. Further, the Tribunal had observed
that the owner of the motorcycle i.e., 3rd respondent is the
NC: 2025:KHC:12604
brother of the petitioner and to claim the compensation in
collusion with 3rd respondent they have created a story stating
that one Rudresh was riding the motorcycle. Accordingly, the
same cannot be believed and answered the issue in the
negative. The Tribunal had also observed that the awarded
compensation may be recovered from his brother, if he is so
interested. The Tribunal had proceeded further and granted
compensation of an amount of Rs.2,40,800/- which is payable
by the owner of the vehicle.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits
that the Tribunal has not granted just compensation and he is
acquitted in the criminal case and he was a pillion rider but, not
the rider of the motorcycle. Learned counsel for the claimant
submits that the Tribunal had fixed the liability on the owner of
the vehicle and it should have been on the insurance company.
It is submitted that he is a pillion rider and that aspect was not
considered by the Tribunal and the compensation that was
awarded by the Tribunal is also on the lower side.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2
and 4/Insurance Companies submits that the Tribunal had
NC: 2025:KHC:12604
rightly exonerated the insurance company. In fact, the claimant
is not entitled for any compensation.
8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the material on record. As the liability is on the owner,
the insurance company has not preferred the appeal even the
owner of the vehicle has not preferred any appeal. It appears
that respondent No.3/owner and the claimant are brothers.
This Court is not able to understand how the Tribunal had
granted compensation when the Court had given a finding that
the claimant himself is responsible for the accident and there is
negligence on his behalf. As the owner of the vehicle has not
preferred any appeal, in this case, this Court is not giving any
finding nor interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal
and at the same time, in the facts and circumstances, this
Court is not inclined to consider the aspect of enhancement.
Hence, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is
dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:12604
ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy
of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
iii. No costs.
iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
BN
