[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramu vs Goutham R on 7 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19090
M.F.A. No.1173/2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1173/2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMU
S/O THIPPENAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO.49, III B CROSS
JAKKUR MAIN ROAD, AMRUTHALLI
SAHAKARA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560092.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA (BY SRI. R. LAKSHMANA, ADV.,)
BAHAR KHANAM
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. GOUTHAM .R
S/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE
AMRUTHHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560092.
2. BRANCH MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
9TH FLOOR, THE ESTATE, NO.121
DICKENSON ROAD, F.M.CARIAPPA COLONY
SHIVACHETTY GARDEN
BANGALORE-560042.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADV., FOR R2
V/O/DTD:20.07.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19090
M.F.A. No.1173/2020
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3372/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AND MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the injured appellant
challenging the judgment and award dated 07.01.2019 in
MVC.No.3372/2017 by the XIII Additional Judge, Court of
Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-15)
(for short 'the Tribunal').
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with
the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, it is
taken up for final disposal.
3. Heard Sri.R.Lakshmana, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Sri.B.C.Shivannegowda,
NC: 2026:KHC:19090
HC-KAR
learned counsel for respondent No.2 and meticulously
perused the material available on record.
4. The appellant sustained grievous injury in a
road accident dated 18.12.2016. He was provided
treatment at M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bengaluru. The
injured appellant filed a claim petition. In support of his
claim, he examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1
to Ex.P16. The respondent, however did not adduce any
evidence. The Tribunal considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, awarded a total
compensation of Rs.2,16,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization of the amount.
5. This appeal is by the injured appellant seeking
for higher compensation. In this appeal, the appellant has
also filed an application in IA.No.1/2026 under Order XLI
Rule 27 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking permission to produce
NC: 2026:KHC:19090
HC-KAR
additional documents. A perusal of the affidavit of the
appellant in support of the application indicates that, after
discharge from the hospital and during the pendency of
the claim petition, as well as thereafter, the appellant
continued with the treatment for his head injuries and now
seeks for consideration of the additional documents. The
learned counsel for the Insurance Company has seriously
opposed both the application and the appeal and submits
that the accident occurred in the year 2016, the claim
petition was disposed of in the year 2019 and the
documents now sought to be produced are of the year
2025 which claims that there is a continuation of
treatment which is not credible at this stage.
6. On perusal of the additional documents
produced by the appellant, it is seen that the appellant has
undergone treatment for head injuries and Dr. Kishore Rao
has recorded observation that the injuries are pertaining
to the road traffic accident. However, such observations
cannot be accepted as a gospel truth unless the same is
NC: 2026:KHC:19090
HC-KAR
produced before the Tribunal and after providing an
opportunity to the respondent to contest the same. Only
thereafter can such material be evaluated and treated as
evidence for the purpose of determining of compensation.
In my considered view, having regard to the documents
produced, the ends of justice would be met if the matter is
remitted back to the Tribunal with liberty to the appellant
to produce the additional documents before the Tribunal.
For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER.
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
07.01.2019 in MVC.No.3372/2017 by the
XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small
Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru
(SCCH-15) is hereby set aside.
NC: 2026:KHC:19090
HC-KAR
iii) The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal
with liberty to the appellant/claimant to
produce documentary evidence and also to
adduce oral evidence.
iv) It is needless to observe that the
respondent/Insurance Company is at
liberty to adduce evidence and cross
examine the witness and evidence
produced by the claimant.
v) The registry shall return the original
documents along with the IA on obtaining
the Xerox copies of the same.
vi) The Tribunal is directed to consider the
early disposal of the claim petition.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
