THE BRANCH MANAGER vs N S HEMAVATHI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59825
MFA No. 4253 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010408072018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4253 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, JAYADEVA HOSTEL BUILDING,
B.H.ROAD, TIPTUR.
BY
ORINETAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144,
NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE – 560 025.
BY ITS MANAGER.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. N.S.HEMAVATHI
AGED 45 YEARS,
D/O. N.G.SANJEEVAPPA,
R/O. NIDAGHATTA VILLAGE,
AND POST, SAKHARAYAPATTANA HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 101.
2. L.M.D. ZABI
AGE 47 YEARS,
S/O. CHAMAN SAB,
R/O. KADUR TOWN,
Digitally signed
by JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59825
MFA No. 4253 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010408072018
KADUR TALUK–577 123.
3. NAVEENKUMAR
MAJOR,
S/O. M.S.MAHENDRA,
PE TEACHER, R/O. BELUR,
NAGAVANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.
4. TANVIR ALAM
MAJOR,
S/O. KHADER BASHA,
R/O. BY THE SIDE OF
M.M.ROAD, BABAVVA ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.N.MANJULA., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R.C.NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R4 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT-V/O
DATED:20.01.2025;
NOTICE TO R2-DISPENSED WITH V/O/DTD:30.11.2022)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03/03/2018, PASSED IN MVC
NO.33/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MMACT, KADUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF 1,94,219/-
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal seeks to challenge a Judgment
and Award dated 03.03.2018 passed by the Senior Civil
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59825
MFA No. 4253 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010408072018
Judge and MACT, Kadur, in MVC No.33/2011 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Impugned Award'). By the Impugned
Award, a sum of Rs.1,94,219/- has been granted by the
learned Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 7% per
annum.
2. The challenge in this appeal has been filed by the
appellant/Insurance Company. By order dated
30.11.2022, notice to respondent No.2/owner was
dispensed with and service in respect of respondent Nos.3
and 4 has been held sufficient by this Court by its order
dated 20.01.2025.
3. When the matter is called out today, no one appears
for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Given the pendency of this
appeal and with the consent of the parties, the matter is
taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage
itself given the limited issue involved.
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59825
MFA No. 4253 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010408072018
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company submits that his challenge
in the appeal is essentially on one ground. He submits that
the accident took place on 25.09.2006 while the claim
petition was filed on 18.03.2011. Learned counsel further
submits that this aspect was also brought forth by him in
his written statement that he filed to the claim petition as
well. However, the learned Tribunal did not take into
consideration these objections and the ground of delay.
Hence the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant on the
other hand contends that there is no doubt that the
accident took place on 25.09.2006. However, a police
complaint was filed on 07.03.2007, based on which an FIR
was registered. She seeks to rely upon the FIR (Exhibit
P1) and the complaint (Exhibit P2) in this behalf. In
addition, learned counsel submits that PW-2 was also
produced as an eye-witness in the matter and the accident
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59825
MFA No. 4253 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010408072018
has not been disputed by the appellant/Insurance
Company. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel
for the respondent No.1/claimant that the issue of delay
has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in several cases
holding that the mere delay in lodging the FIR by itself will
not negate a claim for compensation. Reliance in this
behalf is placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in
1
the case of Ravi vs Badrinarayan & Ors.
6. This Court has examined the record and evidence.
The facts are not in dispute that respondent No.1/claimant
was injured in an accident which took place on
25.09.2006. The injured was a housewife and
agriculturalist. However, she did lodge a police complaint
on 07.03.2007 (Exhibit P2). The appellant is the Insurer of
the offending vehicle being a Honda Motorcycle bearing
registration number KA-03/M-5659. On the basis of the
complaint, the Jurisdictional police registered an FIR. The
1
2011 (4) SCC 693
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59825
MFA No. 4253 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010408072018
respondent No.1/claimant who was injured in the accident
had taken treatment at Sri. Sathya Sai Hospital, Kadur as
well as Shivara Shivappa Memorial Hospital, Hassan. It is
further stated that the respondent No.2/driver of the
offending vehicle appeared before the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate in CC No. 149 of 2009 and also pleaded guilty
for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The claim was contested by
the Insurance Company. There was no presence on behalf
st
of the remaining respondents including the driver/1
nd
respondent and owner of the offending vehicle/2
respondent. The respondent No.3 was the Insurance
Company while respondent No.4 was the policy holder.
Respondent no. 4 did not appear before the Tribunal and
was proceeded with ex-parte.
7. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the
following issues were framed.
“1. Whether the petitioner proves that, she has sustained
grievous injuries due to the actionable negligent driving
of the maruthi omni bearing Regn.No.KA.03/M-5659 by
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59825
MFA No. 4253 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010408072018
the respondent No.1 in a road traffic accident which took
place on 25.9.2006 at about 5.45 p.m. near bridge of
Thangali cross on N.H.206, Kadur tq.?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation? If so, what amount?
3. What award or order?”
8. The claimant examined herself as PW-1 and got an
independent witness examined as PW-2. A total of 66
documents were marked on behalf of the respondent
No.1/claimant as Exhibits P1 to P66. They included the FIR
(Exhibit P1), complaint (Exhibit P2), spot mahazar (Exhibit
P3), Wound Certificates (Exhibits P4 & P5), order sheet
(Exhibit P6), plea (Exhibit P7), certificate (Exhibit P8),
medical bills (Exhibits P9-37), 28 medical prescriptions
(Exhibits P38 to 65) and the RTC (Exhibit P66). Further,
through the court commission the Doctor was examined as
CW1 and two documents namely case sheet and X-ray film
were marked as Exhibits C1 and C2. The Insurance
company got examined one of its officials as RW1 and the
Insurance Policy (Exhibit R1) was marked.
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59825
MFA No. 4253 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010408072018
9. Based on the evidence placed on record, the issue of
negligence was held to be proved. On the injuries
sustained, the learned Tribunal examined the wound
certificate and other documents produced. Given the
notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month
and since the age of the first respondent/claimant was 36
years at the time of the accident, applying multiplier ‘15’,
loss of future income was calculated at Rs.1,08,000/-. In
addition, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation as
per the table as under:
Sl.No. Heads of compensation Amount (in
Rs.)
1 Loss of future income Rs.1,08,000/-
2 Medical expenses & Rs. 26,219/-
attendant charges
3 Loss of income during laid
up period and attendant
charges
Rs. 3,000/-
4 Conveyance charges Rs. 2,000/-
5 Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/-
6 Food and nourishment Rs. 15,000/-
7 Towards future medical Rs. 10,000/-
expenses
TOTAL Rs.1,94,219/-
8
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59825
MFA No. 4253 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010408072018
10. The learned Tribunal thus found that the respondent
No.1/claimant was entitled for compensation of
Rs.1,94,219/- and that the since there is a valid insurance
policy, the appellant/Insurer has been held liable to pay
the compensation. In addition, interest at 7% was also
awarded by the learned Tribunal.
11. As stated above, the challenge in the present appeal
is only on one ground that the injured/claimant was a
housewife as well as an agriculturist. After the accident,
she sustained injuries and that she was taken to two
hospitals for treatment. She has also stated that after the
accident she is not in a position to do any agricultural
work. The respondent No.1/claimant has also placed on
record the affidavit of the witness who has testified to the
accident. The relevant extract of PW-2 paragraph 2 is set
out below:
”AFFIDAVIT
xxx xxx xxx
2. I submits that, on 25-09-2006 at about 05.45 P.M. I
was coming from Kadur to Tangali village by walking on
9
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59825
MFA No. 4253 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010408072018
the by side of the road. When I was reached near
Tangali bridge which is near Tangali gate, at that
time the petitioner was also coming in a motor
cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-18/L-9564 as a pillion
rider, from Kadur direction, on the left side of the
N.H. 206 road . When the said vehicle has reached near
Tangali bridge at that time one Maruthi Omni van bearing
Reg. No. KA-03/M-5659 driven by the 1st respondent
in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite
direction and has dashed to the motor cycle.
Thereby the accident was happened. Due to the
accident the petitioner has sustained injuries on her right
ankle, right knee and other parts of the body. I had seen
the said Motor Vehicle accident. The accident was
happened due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st
respondent.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
12. In addition, the respondent No.1/claimant has also
produced Exhibit P6 which is the order sheet of the
Jurisdictional court. It is not disputed that on the basis of a
complaint dated 07.03.2007 (Exhibit P2) an FIR (Exhibit
P1) was lodged. It is also not disputed that the accident
has occurred on 25.09.2006.
13. The issue raised by the appellant was also raised
before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal
examined this issue and based on the evidence produced,
found that the factum of accident is not in dispute. The
10
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59825
MFA No. 4253 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010408072018
learned Tribunal relied on the admissions made by the
respondent No.1/owner and respondent No.3/Insurer in
their depositions. The learned Tribunal also relied on the
injuries sustained which support the case of the
respondent No.1/claimant, to hold that the delay in
lodging of FIR by itself would not be a ground to suspect
the case of the respondent No.1/claimant.
14. The only ground of challenge in the present appeal is
the delay in filing the claim petition. Learned counsel for
the appellant has also not been able to show any
document or pleading on record which would support his
contentions or raise any suspicion on respondent
No.1/claimant in relation to the delay.
15. It is settled law that mere delay will not deceive a
claim. The Supreme Court in the Judgment in the case of
Ravi , has held as follows:
“17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR
cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case.
Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we
cannot expect a common man to first rush to the
11
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59825
MFA No. 4253 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010408072018
police station immediately after an accident.
Human nature and family responsibilities occupy
the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they
give more importance to get the victim treated
rather than to rush to the police station. Under
such circumstances, they are not expected to act
mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR
with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus,
cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.
18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine
the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the
contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more
carefully. If the court finds that there is no
indication of fabrication or it has not been
concocted or engineered to implicate innocent
persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the
FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on
that ground . The purpose of lodging the FIR in such
type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate
investigation of criminal offences.
[Emphasis Supplied]
16. As stated above, since the accident itself is not in
dispute, this Court finds that the challenge by the
appellant/Insurance Company cannot be sustained. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed . Pending applications
stand closed.
Digitally signed by
TARA VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
KS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
12