##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6923

MFA No. 9228 of 2015

C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9228 OF 2015 (MV-I)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2286 OF 2016 (MV-I)

IN MFA No. 9228/2015

BETWEEN:

LEGAL MANAGER

ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD.,

#89, II FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX,

HOSUR MAIN ROAD,

MADIVALA, BANGALORE - 68.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed

by

PADMASHREE 1. RAMAPRASAD

SHEKHAR

S/O.GANGAMADAIA,

DESAI

NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

Location: High

Court of R/AT GUDDNAHALLI,

Karnataka

MAYASANDRA HOBLI,

TURUVEKERE TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT,

AND ALSO R/AT C/O DEVARAJU, POLICE,

NO.23, 6TH CROSS,

HOYASALANAGARA,

SUNKADAKATTE,

BANGALORE - 560 091.

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6923

MFA No. 9228 of 2015

C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016

HC-KAR

2. KRISHNAPPA

S/O CHIKKAIAH,

NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

R/AT NO.221, BIGANENAHALLI,

TURUVEKERE TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHIVANANDA REDDY R.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC

NO. 2810/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL

CAUSES JUDGE & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER- MACT, BENGALURU,

AN AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 2,18,000/- WITH

INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL

REALIZATION.

IN MFA NO. 2286/2016

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAMAPRASAD

S/O GANGAMADAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

R/AT GUDDENAHALLI,

MAYASADRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.

AND ALSO RESIDING AT

RAM PRASADA,

S/O GANGAMADAIAH,

C/O DEVARAJU POLICE,

NO.23, 6TH CROSS, HOYASALANAGARA,

SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE - 560 091.

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6923

MFA No. 9228 of 2015

C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016

HC-KAR

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SHIVANANDA REDDY R.V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. KRISHNAPPA

S/O CHIKKAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

R/AT NO.221, BIGANENAHALLI,

TURUVEKERE TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE

OFFICE, 89, SVR COMPLEX,

2ND FLOOR, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,

MADIVALA, BANGALORE - 560 068.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

VIDE ORDER DATED 06.03.2018, NOTICE TO R1 IS

DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST

THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2015 PASSED

IN MVC NO.2810/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII

ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, & XXXIII ACMM,

MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE

CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING

ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6923

MFA No. 9228 of 2015

C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the arguments on both sides.

2. These appeals are filed against the judgment and

award dated 05.08.2025 passed by the MVIII Additional Small

Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as

'Tribunal') in M.V.C.No.2810/2014.

3. The injured claimant, who is aged 27 years has met

with an accident on 06.04.2014 and filed a claim petition

claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal after

considering the entire evidence on record, has awarded the

compensation of Rs.2,18,000/- along with interest at the rate

of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the realization of

same from respondents and respondent No.2/Insurance

Company is directed to deposit the compensation and

indemnify the risk of respondent No.1 within one month from

the date of the order.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the

Tribunal, the Insurance Company preferred MFA No.9228/2013,

contending that respondent No.1 had committed fraud. It was

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6923

MFA No. 9228 of 2015

C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016

HC-KAR

submitted that in Exhibit P9, the entire case record produced by

respondent No.1 mentioned as 'fall from tree'. Later, the

claimant implicated the insured vehicle in the accident. There is

delay of nine days in lodging the complaint and no valid

reasons were assigned for s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document