[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Praveen Kumar vs Sri. Murthy M on 27 January, 2026
-1- MFA.No.7667/2015
c/w MFA.No.4551/2015
RESERVED ON : 31.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.01.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7667 OF 2015 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4551 OF2015 (MV)
IN MFA NO.7667/2015
BETWEEN:
PRAVEEN KUMAR,
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT BALACHAHALLI VILLAGE,
SULADEVANAHALLI,
AMMANLURU POST,
VEMAGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
NOW R/AT NO.29/2, 5TH CROSS
VEERANNA PALYA VILLAGE,
ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
BANGALORE - 560 045.
.......APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA R. NAIK., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MURTHY M.,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
R/AT NO. 28/A, 5TH CROSS,
ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
VEERANAPALYA,
BANGALORE - 560 045.
-2- MFA.No.7667/2015
c/w MFA.No.4551/2015
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
D.O 13, ETHIRAJ MUTT BUILDING,
NO.199, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN,
SAMPIGE ROAD, NEAR 11TH CROSS,
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003,
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 01.04.2019 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1989, OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2025 PASSED IN
MVC NO.4120/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSION.
IN MFA NO.4551/2015
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE-13,
ETHIRAJ MUTT BUILDING,
NO.199, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN,
SAMPIGE ROAD,NEAR 11TH CROSS,
MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU.
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, NO.44/45,
RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
... ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE)
AND:
PRAVEEN KUMAR,
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/O BALACHAHALLI VILLAGE,
SULADEVANAHALLI, AMMANALLURU POST,
-3- MFA.No.7667/2015
c/w MFA.No.4551/2015
VEMAGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT - 563 101.
AT PRESENT R/O NO.29/2, 5TH CROSS,
VEERANNAPALYA VILLAGE,
ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
BENGALURU - 560 045.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA R. NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B.R. ANGADI., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1989, OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2025 PASSED IN
MVC NO.4120/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,25,000/- WITH INTEREST @8% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, T.M. NADAF., DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M. NADAF
CAV JUDGMENT
These two appeals, one by insurer and another by claimant
are directed against the judgment and award dated 16.03.2015
in MVC.No.4120/2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
and XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (SCCH-22)
('Tribunal for short'), on liability by the insurer and on the
quantum by the claimant.
2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings
before the Tribunal.
3. Heard Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel for
appellant-insurer in MFA.No.4551/2015 and respondent No.2 in
MFA.No.7667/2015, Sri.Ramachandra R.Naik and Sri.Suresh.M,
learned counsel for claimant/appellant and respondent No.1 in
MFA.No.4551/2015 and Sri.B.R. Angadi for respondent No.2.
4. In MFA.No.4551/2015 by the insurer on the point of
liability, Sri.Mulkhand mainly submits that a false case was
foisted against the insured offending vehicle, whereby the
claimant was shown to have suffered injuries in the accident
occurred on 31.05.2012. Sri.Mulkhand argues mainly on the
following:
GROUNDS
(i) Firstly, a perusal of complaint there is no
whisper regarding the presence of the claimant
on the spot to show that he too suffered injuries
in the accident.
(ii) Secondly, after a period of 27 days, the claimant
has given his statement before the police stating
that he being a pillion on the motorcycle bearing
No.KA-04-TCR-15 suffered injuries due to the
actionable riding in a rash and negligent manner
by the rider of the motorcycle.
(iii) Thirdly, as per his statement the rider of the
motorcycle was his maternal uncle. The accident
occurred on 31.05.2012. He was in-patient till
06.06.2012, however, he has not taken any pain
to report the incident of accident to the police at
the earliest point of time. The delay of 27 days
has not been properly explained, in his
statement.
5. In these circumstances, the injury suffered by the
claimant in the accident occurred on 31.05.2012 is surrounded
by suspicious circumstances and a made believable story is
created by means of giving a statement belatedly after 27 days
stating that he too suffered injuries in the accident occurred on
31.05.2012. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the
matter and held that the claimant has suffered injuries in the
accident dated 31.05.2012, due to the actionable rash and
negligent riding by the rider of the TVS motorcycle and
proceeded to award compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest
at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till
realization. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal exonerating
the Insurance company from paying the compensation.
6. Refuting the submissions of Sri.Mulkand, Sri
Ramachandra with all vehemence submits that, it is not in
dispute that the accident was immediately reported to the police
on the very same day, by the maternal uncle of one Malathi, a
minor girl who sustained injuries in the accident. Though there is
no mention in the complaint regarding the claimant, the fact
remains that the claimant was hospitalized on the very same day
immediately after the accident as per Ex.P6 wound certificate and
examined by the Doctor at 03.30 pm. Since the FIR was lodged
and the criminal law is set into motion and as the claimant was
under treatment, was under the impression that the police have
taken up investigation, has not reported the accident to the
police. However, the police during the course of investigation
recorded his statement as he too injured in the accident. The
police having registered the case, conducted investigation and
filed charge sheet. The charge sheet filed by the police is intact
and not called in question either by the rider or the owner of the
motorcycle. The insurance company except leading the evidence
of the officer of the company has not taken any pain either to
examine any independent witness or the Investigating Officer to
discredit the claim made by the claimant. Even the document
produced by the insurance company i.e., copy of wound
certificate at Ex.R1 (Ex.P6 by claimant) clearly shows that the
claimant was hospitalized on 31.05.2012 at 03.30 p.m. on the
very same date of accident. In these circumstances there is no
question of suspicion regarding the injuries suffered by the
claimant in the accident.
7. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned
counsel submits that the claimant has sustained Zygomatic
fracture. The Tribunal has not considered the case of the
claimant for awarding appropriate compensation with reference
to the injury suffered and the treatment taken. Accordingly,
sought to allow the appeal by the claimant and enhance the
compensation by dismissing the appeal by the insurer.
8. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal
papers as well as trial Court record. The points that arise for my
consideration are:
(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in answering
Issue No.1 framed on rash and negligence of
the rider of the TVS motorcycle?
(ii) Whether the claimant has made out any case
for enhancement of compensation?
9. My answer to both the points for consideration are:
(i) In Affirmative
(ii) In Negative, for the following:
REASONS
10. It is trite that mere delay in registering the complaint
or submitting the statement belatedly is not the sole ground
available to the insurance company to deny its liability to pay the
compensation. My view gains strength with the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others1, in
paragraph Nos.17, 18 and 19, wherein it is observed as under:
"17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR
cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing
the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a
common man to first rush to the police station immediately
(2011) 4 SCC 693
after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities
occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they
give more importance to get the victim treated rather than
to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances,
they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude
in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR
thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.
18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to
examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so
the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more
carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of
fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to
implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in
lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely
on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type
of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate
investigation of criminal offences.
19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of
accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for
compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main
ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words,
although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident
claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated
as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to
demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There
could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed
lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able
to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are
composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same
deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the
authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance
than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons."
11. It is an admitted fact that in the case on hand the
complaint was registered on the very same day of accident i.e.,
on 31.05.2012 by the maternal uncle of injured minor, who has
filed a separate claim petition. It is further on record that even
according to the insurer that the claimant admitted to the
hospital on the very same day at 03.30 p.m. A mere recording of
statement belatedly by the police with reference to the injuries
sustained and only on the fact that the name of the claimant is
not forthcoming as pillion rider in the complaint will not entail the
Insurer to claim that the claimant has not suffered any injuries in
the accident occurred on 31.05.2012, in the teeth of the
document i.e., the wound certificate produced by the claimant as
well as Insurer at Ex.P6/Ex.R1. As such the contentions of the
insurer cannot be countenanced. The Tribunal having considered
these aspects of the matter with valid reasons has come to a
conclusion in answering Issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant,
which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, appeal filed
by the insurance company does not survive for consideration
since it sans merits and is required to be dismissed.
12. So far as the submissions of learned counsel for the
claimant-appellant regarding quantum of compensation, the
Tribunal having considered the injury i.e., simple fracture i.e.,
soft tissue with Zygomatic fracture has awarded a sum of
Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The
compensation awarded under each head is appropriate and
proportionate to the injuries suffered in the accident. This Court
finds no reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal. Even if it is considered that there is a shortfall in
the compensation towards loss of amenities, the compensation
awarded under other heads such as, pain and suffering, food,
nourishment, attendant & Transportation and loss of income
during the laid up period, coupled with interest at the rate of 8%
per annum would compensate the same.
13. In these circumstances, there is no scope even for
enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is liable
to be dismissed. For the fore going reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Both the appeals are dismissed, confirming the
judgment and award dated 16.03.2015 in
MVC.No.4120/2013 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal and XX Additional Small Causes
Judge, Bengaluru (SCCH-22).
ii. The amount in deposit in the appeal by the
insurer shall be transmitted to the trial Court for
disbursement.
iii. The insurer shall deposit balance compensation
amount along with the accrued interest within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order before the concerned Tribunal
for disbursement.
iv. Upon deposit, the Tribunal shall release entire
amount in favour of claimant on proper
identification.
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
RR
