IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7665 OF 2011 (MV)

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

BRANCH OFFICE,

NO.273/13, MALLIKARJUNA COMPLEX

PRAVASI MANDIRA ROAD

DAVANAGERE-577 002.

&APPELLANT

(BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. BASAVARAJ H P

AGE 22 YEARS

S/O PALAKSHAPPA

AGRICULTURIST

R/O ATTIGERE VILLAGE

DAVANAGERE TALUK-577 002.

2. P K NAGARAJA

AGE 28 YEARS

R/O PARASHURAMA VILLAGE

ANNAPURA POST

DAVANAGERE TALUK AND

DISTRICT-577 002.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI JAGADEESH GOUD PATEL, ADVOCATE

FOR R1 (ABSENT);

2

R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16^TH JUNE, 2011 PASSED IN

MVC NO.355/2010 ON THE FILE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & VI

ADDITIONAL

MOTOR

ACCIDENT

CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL

DAVANAGERE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.45,000/-

WITH INTEREST @ 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF CLAIM

PETITION TILL REALISATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company

challenging the judgment and award dated 16^th June, 2011

passed in MVC No.355 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional

Senior Civil Judge and VI Additional Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal at Davanagere, (for short hereinafter referred to as the

'Tribunal'), allowing the claim petition in part.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties in this appeal are

referred to with respect to their status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts, for the purpose of adjudication of this

appeal are that, the claimant was a pillion rider on the

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-17/X-1226 XCD 125 on

15^th August, 2009 and on the way to his aunt's field, the rider of

the motorcycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner

3

and as a result of the same, claimant fell down from the bike and

sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the claimant filed MVC

No.355 of 2010 on the file of the Tribunal seeking compensation

against the respondents on account of the injuries sustained by

him in road traffic accident.

4. On service of notice, Respondent No.1 was served and

placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company entered

appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the

averments made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company

took up a contention that the claim made by the claimant is false

and baseless and accordingly sought for dismissal of the claim

petition.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings on record,

formulated issues for its consideration. Claimant himself was

examined as PW1 and examined another witness as PW2 and

produced 51 documents and same were marked as Exhibits P1

to P51. Respondents have examined their official as RW1 and

produced one document as Exhibit R1. The Tribunal, after

considering the material on record, by its judgment and award

dated 16^th June 2011 allowed the claim petition in part and

awarded global compensation of Rs.45,000/- with interest at the

4

rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award made by the

Tribunal, respondent-Insurance company has preferred this

appeal.

6. I have heard Shri O. Mahesh, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company.

7. Sri O Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has

not properly appreciated the evidence on record in the right

perspective, as the Medico Legal Case record-Exhibit P4 clearly

mention that the claimant was riding the two-wheeler and had a

fall from the bike. This aspect of the matter was not considered

by the Tribunal despite the evidence of RW1 and to fortify his

submission, he placed reliance on the judgment o