M/S UNITED INDIA vs PUTTAMMA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59607
MFA No. 1265 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2873 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010095972014



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1265 OF 2014 (MV-I)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2873 OF 2017 (MV-I)



IN MFA No. 1265/2014

BETWEEN:

PUTTAMMA
W/O POOJARI DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT CHANDANAMANE
BIKKODU HOBI
BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT

PRESENTLY R/AT
C/O GOVINDAIAH
ND
2 CROSS, CPC BOUNDARY
BALEGADDHE,
SAKALESHPUR TOWN
HASSAN DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT








SIGN

(BY SRI. ABHIJITH M.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O MOHAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/AT NO.42,
ST TH
1 MAIN ROAD, 6 CROSS,
NARAYANAPPA GARDEN

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59607
MFA No. 1265 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2873 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010095972014


THAVAREKERE
BANGALORE-560 029.

2. THE BRANCH MNAGER
UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
VENKATESHWAR BUIDLING
B M ROAD, HASSAN-573 201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AM VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/C/O/DATED 05.12.2017 - NOTICE TO R1
IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1234/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,
MACT, SAKLESHPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO. 2873/2017
BETWEEN:

M/S UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
VENKATESHWARA BUILDING
B R ROAD, HASSAN-573 201.

NOW REP.BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
TH
6 FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REP.BY ITS MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A M VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. PUTTAMMA
W/O POOJARI DODDAIAH
MAJOR

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59607
MFA No. 1265 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2873 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010095972014


R/AT CHANDRANAMANE
BIKKODU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 164.

PRESENT ADDRESS:-
ND
C/O GOVINDAIAH, 2 CROSS
CPC BOUNDARY, BALEGADDE
SAKALESHPUR TOWN
HASSAN DISTRICT.

2. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O MOHAN KUMAR
ST
NO.42, 1 MAIN ROAD
TH
6 CROSS
NARAYANAPPA GARDEN
THAVAREKERE
BENGALURU-560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABIJITH M.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/C/O/DATED 05.10.2026 - NOTICE TO R2
IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1234/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C, SAKALESHPUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,00,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 06.11.2013
passed by Senior Civil Judge & Member-MACT, Sakaleshpur in

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59607
MFA No. 1265 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2873 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010095972014


MVC no.1234/2012, these appeals are filed. While MFA
no.1265/2014 is filed by claimant for enhancement of
compensation and MFA no.2873/2017 is by insurer challenging
finding of Tribunal on liability.


2. Sri Abhijith M.M., learned counsel for appellant in
MFA no.1265/2014 submitted that appeal was by claimant for
enhancement of compensation. Brief facts leading to these
appeals were that at 07:00 a.m. on 25.04.2012, when claimant
was near water tank of Chandanmane village, rider of
motorcycle no.KA-05-W-5230 rode it in rash and negligent
manner and it dashed against her causing accident. Alleging
that despite treatment, she did not recover fully and sustained
loss of earning capacity, she filed claim petition against owner
and United India Insurance Co.Ltd. under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 ( MV Act ). On appearance, owner appeared
and stated that offending motorcycle was insured with
respondent no.2 and he was entitled for indemnification.
Insurer opposed claim petition on all grounds including denying
issuance of insurance policy and stating that Insurance

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59607
MFA No. 1265 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2873 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010095972014


Company was unable to confirm issuance of insurance policy to
motorcycle in question, based on particulars provided.


3. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following
issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she
sustained injuries due to the accident alleged to
have taken placed on 25.04.2012 at about 7:00
a.m. Chandan House, near water tank and that
the said accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent riding of the Bike bearing no. KA-05-
W-5230 by its rider?

2. What was the age, occupation and income of
the injured person at the time of accident?

3. Whether the respondent no.1 proves that the
driver of the offending vehicle having valid and
effective driving licence at the time of accident?

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount? And from
whom?

5. What award or order?



4. Claimant examined herself and Dr.Sreeranga N., as
PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P18. There was no
rebuttal evidence.


5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its
rider and by stating that photocopy of insurance policy was

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59607
MFA No. 1265 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2873 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010095972014


produced by claimant and no contrary evidence was led by
insurer held owner and insurer jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation of Rs.1,00,500/- with interest at 6% p.a.
from date of petition till deposit. Dissatisfied with same, appeal
was filed.


6. It was firstly submitted, as on date of accident,
claimant was aged 40 years earning Rs.6,000/- per month as
Coolie, who sustained fracture of left ankle assessed by PW.2 to
have resulted in 23% of permanent physical disability. It was
submitted that Tribunal erroneously under assessed monthly
income at Rs.3,750/- and disability at 10% and granted
inadequate compensation. It was submitted that even award of
Rs.5,000/- towards attendance and other incidental expenses
as against 24 days of in-patient treatment, Rs.20,000/-
towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- only towards
medical expenses was on lower side and sought enhancement.
It was submitted, failure to award any compensation towards
future medical expenses for removal of implants as well as
towards loss of amenities and loss of income during laid-up

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59607
MFA No. 1265 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2873 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010095972014


period was also erroneous. On above grounds, sought for
allowing appeal.


7. Sri AM Venkatesh, learned counsel for appellant in
MFA no.2873/2017 submitted that appeal by insurer was on
solitary ground that appellant was not insurer of offending
vehicle at time of occurrence of accident. Insurance Company
had verified policy particulars produced and was unable to
confirm issuance of policy. It was stated that review petition on
said contention and same having been dismissed, appeal was
filed. It was submitted that learned Single Judge of this Court
in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. N.S. Devaraja & Ors.
reported in ILR 1997 Kar 1061 , under similar circumstances
referring to various decisions had held, when Insurance
Company had denied issuance of policy to offending vehicle,
burden would lie on claimant or owner to establish issuance of
policy. Merely on ground that insurer did not lead any evidence
would not be a ground for fastening liability on insurer. It was
submitted that said ratio would squarely apply and sought for
allowing appeal.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59607
MFA No. 1265 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2873 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010095972014



8. On quantum, it was submitted that Tribunal had
awarded just compensation and there would be no justification
for enhancement.


9. In reply, learned counsel for claimant sought to rely
upon decision of this Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v.
Raju & Ors. [2018:KHC-K:330] to contend that this Court
had held even if policy produced by claimant was alleged to be
a fake policy, insurer cannot escape liability without leading
evidence and therefore, direction for pay and recover was
passed. It was submitted that claimant would be satisfied if
there is modification to said extent.


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


11. From above and since claimant as well as insurer
are in appeals following points would arise for consideration:

(i) Whether Tribunal was justified in holding insurer
liable to pay compensation in absence of
material to establish appellant as insurer of
offending vehicle?

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59607
MFA No. 1265 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2873 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010095972014


(ii) Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as prayed?

Reg.Point no.1:

12. To establish actionable negligence against
owner/insurer, claimant sought to rely on FIR, complaint, spot
mahazar, seizure mahazar, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report,
charge sheet and MLC Intimation marked as Exs.P1 to P4, P6
and P17 respectively. Perusal of said records would indicate
that rider of motorcycle was implicated for causing accident due
to rash and negligent riding. Perusal of FIR and charge sheet do
not indicate that owner/rider was implicated for offence under
Section 146 read with Section 196 of MV Act. However, perusal
of claim petition reveals that claimant had mentioned duration
of insurance coverage in cause-title of claim petition. In written
statement filed by owner, in para 4, he admits insurance
coverage by insurer and prays for indemnification. Perusal of
written statement filed by insurer reveals a specific assertion
that it is unable to confirm issuance of insurance policy to
motorcycle no.KA-05-W-5230 with a plea that in case of failure
to establish policy, insurer would not be liable.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59607
MFA No. 1265 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2873 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010095972014



13. In course of trial, claimant produced photocopy of
proposal form along with photocopy of RC book of offending
vehicle. While passing impugned award, Tribunal observed that
while claimant produced photocopy of insurance policy and RC
book and insurer did not lead evidence to hold insurer jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation. A bare perusal of
document produced by claimant would reveal that it is only a
'proposal form' dated 30.04.2012 and not insurance policy.
Apart from above, proposal form is dated 30.04.2012, when
accident in question occurred on 25.04.2012.


14. In NS Devaraja 's case (supra) referring to earlier
Division Bench decisions, this Court had held fastening of
liability on insurer on sole ground that it did not lead evidence
to establish non-issuance of policy would not be justified as no
party could be called upon to establish negative. Though in
Raju 's case (supra), this Court held insurer liable to pay
compensation to claimant in first place and thereafter recover it
from insurer and that was case where insurer taking contention
of fake policy and would not be parallel on facts to instant case.
In view of above, point no.1 is answered in negative .

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59607
MFA No. 1265 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2873 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010095972014


Reg.Point no.2:


15. On quantum, though as on date of accident,
claimant stated that she was 40 years of age working as Coolie
and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, there was no material to
establish income. In absence, Tribunal was justified in
assessing it notionally. But notional income for year 2012 being
Rs.7,000/-, same ought to have been considered. There is no
dispute about claimant having sustained fracture of bimalleolar
of left ankle. To establish permanent physical disability and loss
of earning capacity, claimant examined PW.2. PW.2 doctor
stated that there were restriction of movements of limb and
disability was assessed at 23%. Considering nature of
occupation and extent of disability, assessment of loss of
earning capacity at 10% by Tribunal would appear justified.
Multiplier applicable corresponding to age of claimant would be
'15'. Thus, compensation towards future loss of income would
be:
Rs.7,000/- X 12 X 15 X 10% = Rs.1,26,000/- .


16. Medical evidence would indicate that claimant took
in-patient treatment for a period of 24 days. Considering same,

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59607
MFA No. 1265 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2873 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010095972014


award of Rs.5,000/- only towards attendance and other
incidental expenses would be grossly on lower side and is
enhanced to Rs.15,000/- . Claimant sustained fracture of
bimalleolar of left ankle, which is to a structural bone.
Considering same, award of Rs.20,000/- towards fractural
injury and Rs.3,000/- towards other injury under pain and
suffering would be inadequate. It would be appropriate to
enhance it to Rs.40,000/- . Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-
towards medical expenses. Since there is no contention
towards proof of medical expenses by production of bills and
taking note of fact that claimant has taken treatment in
Government Hospital, award would to be justified. In course of
his deposition, PW.2 stated about implants in situ . For removal,
claimant would require to undergo surgery. PW.2 has also
stated about correctional procedures. In view of above, it would
be appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- towards future medical
expenses. Since claimant has sustained physical disability, loss
of amenities is assessed at Rs.30,000/- . Normally fractures
take about 3 months to heal. Considering this as period of
layoff, claimant is awarded Rs.21,000/- (Rs.7,000/- X 3).
Thus, claimant is held entitled for total compensation of

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59607
MFA No. 1265 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2873 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010095972014


Rs.2,52,000/-. Same shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from date
of claim petition till deposit. Point no.2 is answered partly in
affirmative as above.


17. Consequently following:
ORDER
(i) MFA no.2873/2017 filed by insurer is
allowed ;
(ii) Judgment and award dated 06.11.2013
passed by Senior Civil Judge & Member-
MACT, Sakaleshpur in MVC no.1234/2012
is modified holding owner liable to pay
compensation to claimant and dismissing
claim petition against insurer.
(iii) MFA no.1265/2014 filed by claimant is
allowed in part;
(iv) Compensation awarded by Tribunal at
Rs.1,00,500/- is enhanced to
Rs.2,52,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.
from date of claim petition till deposit;

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59607
MFA No. 1265 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2873 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010095972014


(v) Amount in deposit in insurer's appeal is
ordered to be refunded to appellant-
insurer by electronic means.

Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE




AV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21