M D CHANDRASHEKARAIAH vs ABDUL KALEEM
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62321
MFA No. 242 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010043802014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
M D CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O M.S.DEVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
TH
AND R/A NO.8/15, 9 CROSS,
SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ABDUL KALEEM
SALEEM TOURS AND TRAVELS,
#333/5, TSP ROAD,
KALASIPALYAM,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ZENITH HOUSE,
KESHAVARAO KHADE MARG,
MAHALAKSHMI,
MUMBAI - 400 034.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI C NARASIMHACHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62321
MFA No. 242 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010043802014
NO.3788/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING , THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 21.08.2013
passed by XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member
Tribunal
MACT, Bangalore (' '), in MVC no.3788/2012, this
appeal is filed.
2. Sri Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by claimant challenging dismissal of
claim petition by Tribunal. Brief facts leading to this appeal
were that at 3:45 am on 01.12.2011, when claimant was
travelling in Bus no.KA-01-AF-15 on Kurnool - Ananthpur road,
its driver drove it in rash and negligent manner and it dashed
against road divider and fell into a ditch. As a result, claimant
sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment at
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62321
MFA No. 242 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010043802014
Government Hospital, Ananthpur and Hosmat Hospital,
Bangalore, he did not recover fully. Therefore, he filed claim
petition in MVC no.3788/2012 under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988(' MV Act ') against owner and insurer of Bus.
3. On appearance, both owner and insurer filed
objections denying occurrence of accident while claimant was
travelling in Bus. Additionally insurer alleged violation of terms
and conditions of policy and claim being excessive.
4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following
issues:
1) Whether the claimant proves that he sustained
grievous injuries in RTA that occurred on
30.11.11 at about 3:45 a.m. while proceeding as
an inmate in Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AF-15
near Kalachatla Bridge, Peapully Mandal NH and
Kurnool - Ananthpur Road due to rash and
negligent driving of the said Bus by its driver?
2) Whether the claimant is entitled for
compensation as claimed? If so, to what amount
and from whom?
3) What order or award?
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62321
MFA No. 242 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010043802014
5. In trial, claimant deposed as PW.1 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P18. Respondents did not lead evidence.
6. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1
partly in affirmative, issue no.2 as not arising for consideration
and issue no.3 by dismissing claim petition leading to this
appeal.
7. It was submitted, only reason assigned by Tribunal
for dismissal of claim petition was that Ex.P6 - Ticket produced
by claimant did not mention Bus number, ticket was issued in
respect of AP Tours and Travels issued by Sree Balaji Travels,
whereas respondent no.1 in claim petition was Saleem Tours
and Travels. It was submitted, standard of proof in claim
petition was preponderance of probabilities, which would favor
claimant as he had not only produced original bus ticket but
also stated about accident in detail and contents of wound
certificate - Ex.P3 corroborated claimant's version. And there
was no cross-examination on these aspects. Further, treatment
records were consistent in indicating that it was for injuries
sustained in accident caused by insured Bus. Merely on account
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62321
MFA No. 242 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010043802014
of minor discrepancies, dismissal of claim petition was not
justified. On above grounds sought for setting aside dismissal
and to pass appropriate award.
8. On other hand, Sri B Pradeep, learned counsel for
insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, dismissal of claim
petition by Tribunal was by assigning reasons. Therefore, award
did not call for interference.
9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment, award and record.
10. This appeal is by claimant challenging dismissal of
claim petition. At outset, occurrence of accident involving
insured Bus is not in dispute. Since Tribunal dismissed claim
petition on ground that claimant failed to establish that he was
travelling in insured Bus at time of accident and about
sustaining injuries in said accident, points that arise for
consideration are:
1) Whether dismissal of claim petition is
justified?
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62321
MFA No. 242 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010043802014
2) If not, compensation claimant would be
entitled to?
Point no.1:
11. To establish actionable negligence against
owner/insurer, claimant relied on police investigation records
namely FIR, Requisition Letter, Wound Certificate, Motor
Vehicles Inspector Report, Inquest Report and Ticket
respectively marked as Exs.P1 to P6. Ex.P1 - FIR is based on
complaint by one of passengers of Bus against its driver. It
mentions about death of driver and several passengers
sustaining injuries. Ex.P2 is for treating criminal proceedings as
abated due to death of accused - Bus driver. Ex.P3 is wound
certificate issued by Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore, mentions
about admission of claimant on 03.12.2011 with history of
injuries sustained in RTA on 01.12.2011 and about treatment
administered till 07.12.2011 for fracture of left parasymphysis
and right subcondylar. Ex.P4 is Motor Vehicles Inspector Report
contains details of damage sustained by insured Bus. Ex.P5 is
inquest panchanama of driver of Bus. Ex.P6 is Bus Ticket
counterfoil issued by Sree Balaji Travels, Hyderabad in name of
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62321
MFA No. 242 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010043802014
Girish, mentioning date of journey as 30.11.2011 from
Hyderabad to Bangalore in respect of seats numbers 15 to 22
in Bus belonging to AP Tours. It is significant to note that Ex.P6
is original counterfoil.
12. While passing impugned judgment, Tribunal noted
discrepancies insofar as non-mentioning of Bus number,
claimant stating to have traveled in Bus belonging to AP Tours
and Travels, ticket issued by Sree Balaji Travels and filing claim
petition against Saleem Tours and Travels and ticket issued in
name of Girish. But, there is no cross examination of claimant
on these aspects by insurer. Only admissions elicited by owner
of Bus are about failure to recollect Bus number, Ticket issued
by Sree Balaji Travels in name of Girish and failure to produce
ticket issued by Saleem Tours and Travels. However there are
upteen suggestions about claimant having taken treatment in
Railway Hospital and entitled for reimbursement of medical
expenses as well as not suffering loss of earning due to
continuation in employment till retirement. Said suggestions
would dilute thrust of respondent no.1's case disputing claimant
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62321
MFA No. 242 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010043802014
having traveled in Bus belonging to respondent no.1 having
met with accident.
13. It is settled law that standard of proof in motor
accident claims is preponderance of probabilities and not proof
beyond reasonable doubt as appearing to have been applied by
Tribunal. Therefore, point no.1 is answered in negative .
Point no.2:
14. Insofar as quantum of compensation, treatment
records including Ex.P3 - Wound Certificate, Ex.P7 - Discharge
Summary, Exs.P9 to P18 - X-rays, Medical Bills, Prescriptions
etc. would indicate that claimant sustained fractures of left
parasymphysis and right subcondylar and treated for same at
Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru and later at Comprehensive Dental
Care Clinic, Bengaluru. Ex.P10 is abstract of expenses incurred
at Hosmat Hospital totaling to Rs.1,54,428/- and Exs.P12 and
P15 of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.9,500/- at Comprehensive Dental
Care. Though there is cross-examination about claimant being
entitled for re-imbursement from Railways, production of
original bills along with receipts would rule out same.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62321
MFA No. 242 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010043802014
Therefore, claimant would be entitled for Rs.1,54,428/- +
Rs.19,500/- = Rs.1,73,928/- towards medical expenses.
15. Further admittedly, claimant continued in Railway
Service even after accident. And as claimant failed to examine
any doctor, he has to be held as failed to establish disability
and loss of earning capacity and being disentitled for
compensation towards future loss of income, loss of amenities,
loss of income during laid up period etc. Only other head of
compensation he would be entitled to would be towards pain
and suffering. Considering fact that claimant suffered fracture
of lower jaw, it is found appropriate to grant compensation of
Rs.25,000/- . Thus, total compensation would be
Rs.1,98,928/- rounded off to Rs.2,00,000/- . Point no.2 is thus
answered partly in affirmative . Consequently, following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part .
ii) Judgment and award dated 21.08.2013
passed by Tribunal in MVC
no.3788/2012 is set-aside .
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62321
MFA No. 242 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010043802014
iii) Claim petition is allowed in part ,
claimant is held entitled for total
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with
interest at 6% per annum from date of
claim petition till deposit.
iv) Insurer is directed to deposit entire
compensation with interest before
Tribunal within six weeks.
v) On deposit, entire compensation with
interest is ordered to be released in
favour of claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
YKL/GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18