IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6365 OF 2016 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER H.D.F.C. ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD BANGAORE-560 001 REP. BY. ASST. MANAGER - LEGAL.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. SATHISHA S/O LATE APPAJI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT GEJJALAGERE MADDUR TLAUK MANDYA DIST-571 428.

Digitally signed

2. SRI MUHAMMED E.V.

by S/O KADERKUTYY HAJI MAJOR, ANNAPURNA G SHAFANS MANZAL, Location: HIGH 8^TH MILE, MAYYIL POST, COURT OF TALIPARAMBA, KARNATAKA KERALA STATE, KANNUR DIST-670 602.

(OWNER OF THE MARUTHI SUZUKI CAR BEARING REG NO.KL-59-C-1280)

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.D.T. CHETHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI.C.M. ASHWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.2.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1414/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MADDUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,28,400/- WITH INTEREST @ 7% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company (Respondent No.2) challenging the judgment and award dated 11^th February 2016, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT., Maddur, (for short `Tribunal), in MVC.No.1414/2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case of both the parties before the Tribunal were that, On 07.05.2014, at about 7.00 p.m. the claimant was standing on the footpath of Bengaluru-Mysuru road at Gejjalagere, Mandya District. At that time, the driver of the Maruti Suzuki car bearing registration No.KL-59-C- 1280, drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained fractures. He took treatment as an inpatient in MIMS Hospital, Mandya, for a period of 15 days. He has spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses. He was aged about 30 years and was an agriculturist, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.6,80,000/-.

4. The Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

5. Respondent No.2 denied the contentions of the claimant. It denied the involvement of the vehicle and also impersonation of the driver since the person who was driving the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation for committing breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

7. The claimant to prove his case examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 14 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-14. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked documents as Exs.R-1 to R-6.

8. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant as 30 years, his income as Rs.6,000/- per month, applied the multiplier of `17', assessed the disability at 10% to the whole body and in all awarded total compensation of Rs.2,28,400/- by the impugned judgment.

9. I have heard the arguments.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that there is an inordinate delay of 12 days in filing the complaint. The alleged accident was said to have taken place on 07.05.2014 and complaint was registered on 18.05.2014 and in the