NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs J C JAGADEESHA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017




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

MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.114 OF 2017 (MV-I)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1215 OF 2017(MV-I)

IN MFA.CROB NO. 114/2017

BETWEEN:

MR.J C JAGADEESHA
S/O CHANDRASHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
CIVIL CONTRACTOR,
R/O M.C.HALLI VILLAGE,
TARIKERE TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 228.

...CROSS OBJECTOR






(BY SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . M CHANDRASHEKARA
S/O MALLESHAPPA G.C.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O BILAKI THANDYA,
DONABAGATTA POST,
BADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301.

2 . RAJANAIKA H C
S/O CHOKLANAIK,
R/O BILAKI THANDYA,
DONABAGATTA POST,
BADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301.

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017



SHIMOGA - 577 201,
REP BY ITS BRNACH MANAGER.

4. K.C.RAMESHA
S/O K.M.CHANDRAPPA,
R/AT NO.80,
KORANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KACHIKATTE POST,
SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577 201.

...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R3
V/O/D 13.11.2025 NOTICE TO R1, R2 & R4 IS D/W]

THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA.NO.1215/2017 FILED U/O 41 RULE 22
R/W SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 25.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC.NO.41/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL.JMFC., TARIKERE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA No. 1215/2017:
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, SHIMOGA,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

…APPELLANT
[BY SRI H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
1 . J.C. JAGADEESHA
S/O CHANDRASHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
CIVIL CONTRACTOR,
R/AT M.C.HALLI VILLAGE,
TARIKERE TALUK - 577 228
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017




2 . M.CHANDRASHEKARA
S/O MALLESHAPPA G.C.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT BILAKI THANDYA,
DONABAGATTA POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 301
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
(DRIVER OF MARUTHI ZEN
CAR NO.KA-18/M-9976)

3. RAJANAIKA H.C.,
S/O CHOKLANAIK,
ADULT,
R/A BILAKI THANDYA,
DONABAGATTA POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 301
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
(OWNER OF MARUTHI CAR
KA-18/M-9976)

4. K.C.RAMESHA
S/O K.M.CHANDRAPPA,
R/AT NO.81,
KORANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KACHIKATTE POST,
SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577 201.
(PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE CAR)
…RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (PH);
NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.41/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, &
PRINCIPAL JMFC, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, TARIKERE,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.6,40,781/- WITH INTEREST @
6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017



THESE CROSS OBJECTION AND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
DICTATING ORDERS , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 25.05.2016
passed by Senior Civil Judge & Member - Addl.MACT, Tarikere,
in MVC no.41/2014, MFA no.1215/2017 is filed by insurer. In
same, claimant has filed MFA Crob.no.114/2017 for
enhancement.


2. Smt.HR Renuka, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by insurer challenging award of
Tribunal on ground of false implication of insured vehicle for
purpose of claim . Brief facts as per claimant were that at
10:30 a.m. on 20.10.2013 , when claimant was standing beside
his motorcycle no.KA-18/R-9886 on footpath of NH-206 at MC
Halli, driver of Car no.KA-18/M-9976 drove it in a rash and
negligent manner and it dashed against claimant. In accident,
claimant sustained injuries and despite treatment at Govt.
Hospital, Bhadravati and Nanjappa Hospital, Shivamogga, he
did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017



Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (' MV Act ') against driver, owners and
insurer of Car.


3. On service of notice, respondents no.1 (driver) and 2
(owner) entered appearance and filed objections denying
negligence in accident but stating that driver of Car held valid
driving licence and as Car was insured with respondent no.3 -
insurer, claiming indemnity.


4. Insurer filed separate objections, denying occurrence
of accident as alleged, admitting issuance of policy to Car in
question but in favour of KC Ramesh – respondent no.4 and not
in name of Rajanaika HC - respondent no.2. Even violation of
terms and conditions of policy, claim petition being exorbitant
and claimant not sustaining any loss of earning capacity were
urged.


5. Respondent no.4 filed separate objections stating that
he had sold Car insured by insurer, to respondent no.2 and as
per Endorsement Certificate dated 17.08.2013, insurance stood

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017



transferred in name of respondent no.2 and sought for
dismissal of claim petition against him.


6. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following issues:
i. Whether the petitioner proves that on
20.10.2013 at about 1030 a.m. he was
standing along with his motor cycle
bearing Registration no.KA-18-R-9886 by
the side of footpath on NA-206 road at
M.C.Halli, Tarikere taluk, the driver of
Maruthi car bearing registration no.KA-
18-M-9976 came at high speed rashly
and negligently and dashed the said
vehicle against the petitioner, due to
which he fell down along with motor
cycle and sustained injuries as stated in
the petition?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what amount and
from whom?

iii. What order or award?


7. To establish contentions, claimant examined himself
as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P12. Dr.Narayana Panji
examined as CW.1 and got marked Exhibits C1 to C5.
Respondents did not lead oral evidence but got marked Exhibits
R1 to R3 with consent.


8. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in
affirmative, issue no.2 partly in affirmative and issue no.3 by

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017



awarding compensation of Rs.6,40,781/- with interest at 6%
p.a. from respondents no.1 to 3 and dismissing claim petition
against respondent no.4. Aggrieved, insurer was in appeal.


9. It was submitted that as per claimant immediately
after alleged accident, he was taken to Govt. Hospital,
Bhadravati for first aid and later to Nanjappa Hospital,
Shivamogga, where he was in-patient for three days. But
claimant failed to produce wound certificate issued by Govt.
Hospital. It was submitted that Ex.C1-treatment record of
Nanjappa Hospital showed three injuries sustained by claimant,
two simple in nature and only injury no.3 (fracture of
Metacarpals) as grievous. Though, CW.1 deposed about
fracture of backbone of claimant, same was not mentioned in
discharge summary dated 23.10.2013. He admitted that during
initial examination, he did not note any grievous injuries
sustained by claimant. In view of above, disability certificate
dated 18.07.2015 obtained after lapse of 2 years from date of
accident would raise suspicion. It was further submitted,
discharge summary advised claimant for review after five days.
Hence, disability certificate issued after two years was likely to

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017



be unrelated to accidental injuries. In view of above, claimant
could claim compensation only for fracture of metacarpal bone.
Thus, Tribunal erred in assessing whole body disability at 13%
and awarding excessive compensation. On said ground, sought
for sought for allowing appeal.


10. On other hand, Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel
for claimant opposed appeal. It was submitted, claimant had
filed cross-objection for enhancement of compensation.


11. It was submitted, as on date of accident claimant was
35 years old Civil Contractor earning more than Rs.50,000/-
per month. Exs.P9 and P10 showed contracts worth
Rs.8,31,214/- and Rs.4,75,195/- during years 2012 and 2013,
completed by claimant. Hence, assessment of monthly income
at Rs.20,000/- was on lower side.


12. It was submitted, Ex.P6-discharge summary showed
th th
claimant diagnosed with head injury and fractures of 4 and 5
metacarpal bones of right hand. Even X-ray was taken on
21.10.2013. Ex.C3 - disability certificate issued by CW.1
mentions psychoneurological disability of 25%, spinal disability

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017



of 20% and scalp disability of 2.5% i.e. total disability of
47.5%. Thus, Tribunal erred in taking functional disability at
only 13% and awarding inadequate compensation of
Rs.4,99,200/- towards loss of future earning capacity. It was
submitted, even grant of Rs.55,874/- towards medical
expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards food and attendant charges,
Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance, Rs.20,000/- granted towards
pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income during
laid up period, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and
enjoyment and Rs.5,707/- for damages to motorcycle was
inadequate and sought enhancement.


13. It was submitted, there was no dispute about
offending Car being insured and as driver of Car had valid
driving licence as on date of accident. Hence, Tribunal was
justified in passing award against insurer. On above grounds,
prayed for allowing cross-objection and dismissing appeal.


14. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,
award and record.


15. From above, points that arise for consideration are:

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017



i. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding insurer
liable to pay compensation?

ii. Whether compensation awarded by Tribunal calls
for modification?

Reg.Point no.(i)

16. At outset, there is no dispute about occurrence of
accident on 20.10.2013 and about claimant aged 35 years
working as Civil Contractor sustained injuries therein.


17. Insurer is in appeal alleging false implication of
insured vehicle. To substantiate actionable negligence against
owner/insurer, claimant relied on police notice, FIR, Complaint,
Spot Mahazar and Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report marked as
Exs.P1 to P5. Ex.P2 - FIR is registered on basis of complaint by
Mahamad Jikriya against driver of Car no.KA-18-M-9976.
Complaint is filed at 12:30 pm on 20.10.2013 i.e. within two
hours of accident. Merely on ground that description of vehicle
is as ‘Maruti Zen’ Car instead of ‘Maruti Zen Estilo’ would not
substantiate suspicion about false implication of insured vehicle
for purpose of claim.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017




18. Though insurer claimed to have issued insurance
policy to offending Car in name of respondent no.4 and not to
respondent no.2, Ex.R1-insurance certificate would substantiate
endorsement by insurer about transfer of insurance in name of
respondent no.2. Hence, point no.(i) is answered in affirmative .

Reg.Point no.(ii)

19. On quantum, monthly income of claimant is disputed.
Though claimant stated that he was 34 year old Civil Contractor
earning Rs.50,000/- per month and sought to establish same
by producing Exs.P9 and 10 – contract certificates, they would
show that as Class-4 Contractor, claimant executed works
worth Rs.5,14,499/- during years 2009-10 to 2011-12 and
Rs.8,31,214/- during years 2012-13 to 2013-14, i.e. total of
Rs.13,45,713/- during five years, at average of Rs.2,69,142/-
per year. Only admission elicited in cross-examination is non-
production of corresponding income tax returns. Suggestions
about Exs.P9 and P10 being created for purpose of claim are
denied. There is no contrary evidence by insurer. Even in
absence of same, entire contract amount cannot be claimed as
income. Expenses towards material and labour have to be

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017



deducted. In view of above, assessment of monthly income at
Rs.20,000/- would appear grossly excessive. In light of fact
that records show claimant having worked as Contractor for
five years, it is found appropriate to assess his monthly income
at Rs.14,000/-.


20. Insofar as physical disability and loss of earning
capacity, insurer has disputed fracture of backbone on ground
that it was not mentioned in Ex.P6 - discharge summary. Ex.P6
reveals claimant was admitted for treatment on 20.10.2013
and discharged on 23.10.2013. Though there is mention about
th th
head injury, treatment was only for fractures of 4 and 5
metacarpal bones. CW.1 states that during subsequent visit,
when claimant complained of neck pain, he was subjected to
MRI Scan, which revealed fracture of backbone. He stated that
same was treated with Belt and painkiller medicine as out-
patient. Referring to above, CW.1 mentioned about claimant
sustaining psycho-neurological disability of 25%, spinal
disability of 20% and scalp disability of 2.5%. But in Ex.C3 -
disability certificate issued after two years, there is no mention
about fracture of backbone nor mention about any tests by

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017



psychologist to determine psycho-neurological disability. And
normally fractures of metacarpals would not cause disability.
Under above circumstances, assessment of loss of earning
capacity at 13% by Tribunal would be excessive. If same is
reduced to 5%, same would appear just and proper.
Considering age of claimant at 33 years multiplier applicable
would be '16'. Thus, compensation towards future loss of
income would be :
Rs.14,000/- x 5% x 12 x 16 = Rs.1,34,400/- .


21. Insofar as compensation under other heads, it is seen
that award of Rs.55,874/- towards medical expenses
corresponds to bills produced. Since there is complete
reimbursement, there would be no scope for enhancement.


22. Insofar as compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards
food and attendant charges, Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance
and Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/-
towards loss of income during laid-up period, claimant is
seeking enhancement. Medical records reveal claimant took
in-patient treatment for only 4 days, for treatment of fractures

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017



of two Metacarpals. Under above circumstances, award towards
incidental expenses would appear excessive, towards pain and
suffering just and proper and towards loss of income during
laid-up period inadequate as monthly income is re-assessed at
Rs.14,000/-. On overall consideration, total of above award
would appear to balance itself. Hence, no interference.


23. In view of conclusion arrived at above that there is
failure to establish fracture of backbone was due to injuries
sustained in accident as well as failure to establish psycho-
neurological disability, award of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
amenities and enjoyment and Rs.5,707/- towards damages to
motorcycle would be just and proper. Point no.(ii) is answered
partly in affirmative. Consequently, following:

ORDER
(i) MFA Crob.no.114/2017 filed by claimant is
dismissed , while MFA no.1215/2017 filed
by insurer is allowed in part .
(ii) Judgment and award dated 25.05.2016
passed by Tribunal in MVC no.41/2014 is

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61602
MFA.CROB No. 114 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1215 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010294562017



modified reducing total compensation
payable to claimant at Rs.2,75,981/- with
interest at 6% per annum from date of
claim till deposit.
(iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal.
(iv) Insurer is directed to deposit balance
compensation with interest before Tribunal
within six weeks.
(v) On deposit, entire compensation is ordered
to be released to claimant.

Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE


YKL,AV,GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45