Karnataka High Court
Smt Savitha vs Sri P R Puttappa 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.
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.
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/-
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
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.
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
In view of the above discussion, MFA
No.2578/2019 is dismissed.
Sd/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
BNV
