UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs B SURESH

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61598
MFA No. 3318 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293602017





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI


MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3318 OF 2017(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
HUB, BANGALORE
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
#18, 5TH & 6TH FLOORS,
KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
…APPELLANT






[(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE (PH)]

AND:


1. B.SURESH,
S/O K.RAJANNA BADIGAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/A NO.434, WARD NO.7,
NEAR RAMA TEMPLE,
HOOVINAHADAGALI POST & TALUK,
BANGALORE - 583 219.
R1 SUSTAINED HEAD INJURY,
REP BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN
RAJANNA BADIGAR.

2. N.SATHISH,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
NO.81, SANNAPPANAHALLI,
BETTA HALASURU POST,
Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61598
MFA No. 3318 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293602017



BANGALORE - 560 012.
(OWNER OF THE LORRY)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 (PH);
NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.18/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM AND XXIII
A.S.C.J. BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.10,73,300/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT
(EXCEPT FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES AMOUNT).

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 17.09.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CAV JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 13.02.2017
passed by XXI ACMM and XXIII A.S.C.J. Bengaluru in MVC no.
18/2013, this appeal is filed.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61598
MFA No. 3318 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293602017




2. Sri Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by insurer challenging award on
liability. Brief facts leading to this appeal as per claimant were
that at 11.00 a.m. on 12.12.2012, when B Suresh (claimant)
was travelling in Lorry no.UP-53/AT-0911 as cleaner towards
Bettalsur, its driver drove it in rash and negligent manner, lost
control over Lorry causing it to topple. In accident, claimant
sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment at Baptist
Hospital, Bangalore, he did not recover fully and sustained
permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity. And
for compensation filed claim petition against insurer and owner
of offending Lorry under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 ( MVA ).


3. Despite service of summons, owner did not appear
and was placed ex-parte . Only insurer opposed claim petition
on all grounds, including that owner of Lorry did not furnish
relevant documents of vehicle, there was non-disclosure of
information of driver of Lorry holding valid and effective driving
licence as on date of accident and denying claimant as cleaner
in Lorry.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61598
MFA No. 3318 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293602017





4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following:
ISSUES
(1) Whether the petitioner proves that, he has
sustained injuries on 12.12.2012 at about
11.00 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving
of Lorry bearing Reg.No.UP-53-AT-0911, by
its driver at Bettahalasuru Bunde road,
Vidyanagar cross, Bangalore?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
Compensation? If so, what is the quantum?
From whom payable?

(3) What order or award?


5. In trial, claimant’s father and Dr.Sharan Srinivasan
deposed as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17. Owner
examined IO as RW.1, while insurer examined it’s officer as
RW.2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R6.


6. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in
affirmative, issue no.2 partly in affirmative and issue no.3 by
holding insurer liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,73,300/-
with interest at 8% per annum leading to this appeal.


7. At outset, it was submitted that there were grave
contradictions about manner of occurrence of accident. It was
submitted that Ex.P11 – Admission record of claimant at Baptist

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61598
MFA No. 3318 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293602017



Hospital mentions injuries were sustained when Lorry dashed
against compound wall, contradicting Exs.P1 to P4 – FIR,
complaint, charge sheet and spot mahazar which show Lorry
toppled after rolling back into ditch. And as apparently,
claimant was driving Lorry without driving licence and after
consuming alcohol, driver was swapped to suppress material
fact about violation of policy conditions. Fact that complaint
was filed 6 days after alleged accident and admission of
claimant was not as Medico Legal Case substantiated suspicion.
On above grounds sought for allowing appeal.

8. Sri M.H. Prakash, learned counsel for claimant
opposed appeal. It was submitted since claimant was cleaner in
Lorry, consumption of alcohol would not mitigate his claim and
in absence of evidence by insurer and failing to examine
insured or driver of Lorry, relying only on entries in medical
records manner of occurrence of accident cannot be held
established. More so, when claimant’s version was supported
by prosecution records namely Ex.P1 to P5 – FIR, complaint,
charge sheet, spot mahazar and motor vehicle inspector’s
report. It was submitted, fact that owner of vehicle had

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61598
MFA No. 3318 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293602017



promised to bear medical expenses was reason for delay in
filing complaint.


9. It was submitted since claimant suffered total loss
of earning capacity, even claimant had filed appeal for
enhancement. But due to inadvertence it was dismissed for
default. Relying on decision of this Court in New India
Assurance Company v. Basappa , reported in 2020 SCC
OnLine Kar 3361, in view of pathetic condition of claimant, it
was submitted that even in absence of appeal by claimant, this
Court would be justified in enhancing compensation. It was
further submitted that this Court in Gousa Patel v. Mansur
Patel , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 10051, relying on
decision of Apex Court in Mohd. Sabeer v. UPSRTC , reported
in (2023) 20 SCC 774 , it was submitted that even in personal
injury claims future prospects was required to be added. And
relying on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kajal v.
Jagdish Chand , reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 , as claimant
was totally disabled, compensation towards attendant charges
were required to be awarded. On said grounds, sought for
enhancement of compensation.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61598
MFA No. 3318 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293602017





10. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned award
and record.


11. From above, points that arise for consideration are:
i. Whether Tribunal erred in holding
insurer liable to pay compensation?

ii. Whether claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation in
insurer’s appeal?
Point no.(i) :

12. At outset though there is no dispute about
occurrence of accident involving insured Lorry on 12.12.2012,
dispute is confined to manner of occurrence and about driver of
Lorry. To establish actionable negligence against owner/insurer
of Lorry, claimant relied on FIR, complaint, charge sheet, spot
mahazar and motor vehicle inspector’s report marked as Exs.P1
to P5. As per said records claimant sustained injuries when
Lorry rolled backwards and fell into a ditch. Statement in claim
petition as well as in deposition of PW.1 was consistent with
prosecution records.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61598
MFA No. 3318 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293602017




13. But accident occurred at 11:00 am on 12.12.2012
and immediately after same, he went to Baptist Hospital. Since
complaint was filed 6 days thereafter, first public record about
accident would be of Baptist Hospital. Ex.P.11 - admission
record of claimant indicates he was examined at hospital at
12:10 pm. ( GCS ) Glasgow Coma Scale reading of (i) eyes: ‘-3’
i.e. opening eyes only asked; (ii) limbs: ‘-5’ i.e. localized pain
and (iii) verbal: ‘-4’ i.e. confused speech. Though, there is
record of nasal bleed and altered sensorium , his examination at
4:20 pm by ENT doctor records injury to nose but ‘ no ENT
bleed ’. It also notes patient under influence of alcohol .
There is no mention about anyone else accompanying claimant.
And when claimant was admitted to hospital immediately after
accident and hospital records him to be under influence of
alcohol four hours after accident, in absence of explanation,
preponderance of probabilities would be that he was under
influence of alcohol from time of accident.


14. Ex.P7 – discharge summary notes that at time of
admission, claimant was conscious and oriented but due to MCA
and thrombosis in brain, he sustained hemiparesis, was treated

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61598
MFA No. 3318 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293602017



for same and discharged. PW.1 – father of claimant deposed
that on 12.12.2012, his son – Suresh was cleaner in Lorry and
when driver Shashidhara drove it in rash and negligent manner
and Lorry was rolling back from top of hill near Vidyanagara
Cross, his son jumped out to save himself, fell from high
altitude to bottom of hill and sustained injuries. He was cross-
examined by suggesting that his son caused accident by driving
Lorry, that he used to consume alcohol and that hospital
records mention same and to overcome disentitlement from
compensation, Shashidhar was shown as driver were all denied.
Except eliciting admission that PW.1 did not witness accident
and no record produced to substantiate claimant being unable
to depose, nothing material is elicited.


15. PW.2 is Doctor who treated claimant at Baptist
Hospital deposed in detail about injuries sustained and
treatment administered. He stated that claimant sustained
residual spastic right hemiparesis of 50%, neurobehavioral
disability of 20% and cognitive disability of 25% and whole
body disability at 67.52%. He specifically assessed avocational
disability at 100%. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61598
MFA No. 3318 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293602017



claimant was smelling of alcohol at time of examination.
Nothing material is elicited insofar as injury, treatment given
and disability sustained. An admission about noting cause of
injuries as due to Lorry hitting compound wall is elicited. PW.2
states that MLC intimation was given.


16. But Investigating Officer examined as RW.1 denies
receiving MLC intimation. In his cross-examination, he states
that complaint was given by claimant’s father six days after
accident. After stating that he visited accident spot and drew
panchanama on 19.12.2012, he states about visiting accident
spot on 12.12.2012. Suggestion about accident being caused
by claimant himself while driving Lorry and it dashing against
compound wall are denied.


17. Official of insurer examined as RW.2 deposed about
history of injuries noted by hospital was due to Lorry dashing
against compound wall and alleging claimant driving Lorry
under intoxication without driving licence and therefore, insurer
not liable to pay compensation. Hospital records marked as
Exs.R4 and R5 (Emergency Doctors Assessment and Initial

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61598
MFA No. 3318 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293602017



Assessment Form) also mention history of injuries as due to
Lorry hitting compound wall. But they also mention about
claimant being brought with nasal bleed and altered sensorium.
Exs.R2 and R6 – Charge sheet and FIR shows prosecution of
driver of Tipper Lorry for offences under Sections 279 and 337
of IPC as well as Sections 187 and 134(B) of MV Act and
naming claimant as victim. It also records promise by Lorry
owner to bear medical expenses and later resiling as cause for
delay in filing complaint.


18. Above material disclose that claimant had
consumed alcohol and there is contradiction about manner of
occurrence of accident. But, whether they are so grave as to
disentitle claimant from compensation would require
examination. There is no denial about insurance coverage of
Lorry at time of accident. Thus, even if accident occurred due
to collision of Lorry against compound wall, insurer would still
be liable. Insurer would succeed only if there is any material to
indicate accident occurred while claimant himself was driving
Lorry without driving licence and after consuming alcohol.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61598
MFA No. 3318 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293602017




19. While passing impugned award, Tribunal considered
insurer’s contention and traversed entire material on record.
Insofar as entry about history of injuries, it observed that there
was nothing on record to show that said entries were based on
information given by claimant himself. Based on said reasoning,
it held claimant had established actionable negligence against
driver/owner of Lorry. Though, insurer succeeds in establishing
that claimant had consumed alcohol at time of accident and
there is entry about Lorry dashing against compound wall,
there is no material to establish that claimant was driving Lorry
at time of accident and caused licence or about manipulation or
falsification of records to foist false claim against insurer. To
hold occurrence of accident as alleged by insurer based only on
above two factors would amount to jumping to conclusion. It is
settled law that when Court/Tribunal has arrived at conclusion
on appreciation of entire material on record, merely on ground
that another view was possible, said conclusion cannot be
overturned. Hence, point no.(i) is answered in negative .

20. And question whether compensation can be
enhanced in favour of claimants in an Insurer’s Appeal is dealt

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61598
MFA No. 3318 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293602017



by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjana Prakash v. Divl.
Manager, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 639 :
“7. This principle also flows from Order 41 Rule 33 of
the Code of Civil Procedure which enables an
appellate court to pass any order which ought to
have been passed by the trial court and to make
such further or other order as the case may
require, even if the respondent had not filed any
appeal or cross-objections. This power is
entrusted to the appellate court to enable it to do
complete justice between the parties. Order 41
Rule 33 of the Code can however be pressed into
service to make the award more effective or
maintain the award on other grounds or to make
the other parties to litigation to share the benefits
or the liability, but cannot be invoked to get a
larger or higher relief. For example, where the
claimants seeks compensation against the owner
and the insurer of the vehicle and the Tribunal
makes the award only against the owner, on an
appeal by the owner challenging the quantum,
the appellate court can make the insurer jointly
and severally liable to pay the compensation,
along with the owner, even though the claimants
had not challenged the non-grant of relief against
the insurer. Be that as it may.

8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum
of compensation, irrespective of who files the
appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court
is to examine the facts and by applying the
relevant principles, determine the just
compensation. If the compensation determined
by it is higher than the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal,
if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if
it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the
compensation determined by the High Court is
lesser than the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal
by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any
appeal by owner/insurer for reduction. The High

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61598
MFA No. 3318 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293602017



Court cannot obviously increase the
compensation in an appeal by owner/insurer for
reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the
compensation in an appeal by the claimants
seeking enhancement of compensation.”


21. Though learned counsel for claimant sought to rely
on decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in Basappa ’s
case (supra), ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ranjana Prakash ’s case (supra) would prevail. Moreso in
instant case, where claimant had preferred appeal in MFA
no.3223/2017, same was dismissed for non-prosecution on
13.09.2017 and claimant has failed to have it restored even
after lapse of more than 9 years. Thus, point no.(ii) is also
answered in negative . Consequently, following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed. Amount in deposit is
ordered to be transmitted to tribunal for payment.
Balance to be deposited within six weeks.

Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE


YKL,AV,GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47