- 1 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 RESERVED ON : 16.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 03.03.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7135 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. MOHAMMAD SAYEED, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE K.M. ABDUL RAHIM, R/AT NO 15 1ST FLOOR, SHANTAPPA LANE, SJP ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU – 02. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO. 89, 2ND FLOOR, SRV COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, BENGALURU, BY ITS MANAGER. 2. MISS. PAVITHRA V., D/O LATE VASU M, R/AT NO 12 SY NO 216, 1ST CROSS 2ND MAIN, - 2 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 3RD BLOCK, HBR SHIVARAMAIAH LAYOUT, KALYANA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1207/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 28TH ACMM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF CAV JUDGMENT Heard, Sri.Shripad V.Shastri., learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant and Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda., learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurer. Respondent No.2 though served, is unrepresented. 2. Calling in question the dismissal of Claim Petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, by - 3 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide Judgment and award dated 04.06.2015 in M.V.C.No.1207/2013, the claimant is in appeal seeking to set-aside the Judgment and award and remand the matter to consider on merits. 3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 4. In an accident occurred on 24.01.2013 at about 11:00 am., the petitioner-claimant who was proceeding in Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg. No.KA-04-EQ-7177, met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of the Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg. No.KA-53-V-4973, suffered grievous injuries. The claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries. 5. Upon notice, respondent No.2 – owner of the offending vehicle, despite service remained unrepresented and placed ex-parte. Respondent No.1-Insurer entered appearance through its counsel and filed statement of objection. - 4 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 6. In its statement of objection, respondent No.1 apart from denying the petition averments, specifically contended that the accident occurred due to slip and fall. After the accident, the claimant was shifted to Hosmat hospital for treatment, he has given a version/ history which is recorded in MLC as ‘ALLEGED H/O RTA on 24/01/2013 TWO WHEELER SLIP AND FALL’. It was further contended that this history recorded in MLC clearly shows that the accident was a self-accident. Further it was contended that the petitioner in active collusion with Police and Insured, filed false claim petition to get compensation. However, it was submitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurer. 7. The Tribunal upon completion of pleadings framed following issues: 1) Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in road traffic accident that alleged to have been occurred on 24.01.2013 at about 11 a.m. on HBR Layout, 3rd Block, opposite to KEB Office, Bengaluru, was due to rash & negligent riding of the - 5 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-04-EQ-7177 by its rider as alleged in the petition? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so to what extent & from whom? 3) What order? 8. The claimant in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1 and three witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and produced 17 documents, marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. The respondent-Insurer examined its Manager as RW.1 and produced Coy of Policy marked as Ex.R1. 9. The Tribunal, upon completion of trial, heard the arguments and answered Issue No.1 in the Negative and Issue No.2 as does not survive for consideration and proceeded to dismiss the claim petition, stating that the claimant has failed to prove the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident in as much as the MLC there is a clear history as slip and fall. The Tribunal at Page No.8 of its Judgment, observed that after verifying the record, especially Ex.P11 i.e., IP record of Hosmat Hospital, in view of two recitals stated therein, stated that there is a - 6 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 mention of slip and fall from two wheeler and the claimant has failed to prove the involvement of other vehicle in the accident. Accordingly, upon considering the material placed before it, the Tribunal answered Issue No.1 against the claimant and dismissed the claim petition. It is this Judgment and award is called in question by the claimant. 10. Sri.Shripad V.Shastri., taking this Court through the trial Court record, especially the FIR submits that the FIR was registered after the statement was taken in the Hospital, as per the endorsement stated in the complaint. In the complaint, there is a clear statement that the offending motorcycle being ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle in which the claimant was proceeding, caused the accident. Immediately thereafter, he was shifted in 108 Ambulance to Hosmat Hospital. The IMV report clearly shows damage to both the vehicles and this is not at all disputed by the Insurer. He further submits that Ex.P11 which is the IP record clearly shows that the history of accident is RTA. He further invited the attention of this Court to cross- - 7 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 examination of PW.1 to contend that certain statement has been elicited which clearly indicates that the offending vehicle came from opposite direction and dashed the vehicle of the claimant and the accident had occurred in the middle of the road. 11. He further refers to evidence of PW.4 – eye witness who has witnessed the accident and had clearly stated the way in which the accident has taken place. The Tribunal has failed to consider this important evidence and denied to accept the evidence of PW.4 and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice and submits that the Tribunal overweighed the contents stated in MLC register to come to a conclusion that there is no involvement of the offending vehicle and dismissed the claim petition. The said finding is erroneous and unsustainable and thus, required to be set-aside and the matter be remanded to the Tribunal to consider the same on merits to assess the compensation to the injuries sustained. The learned counsel further taking this Court through the Issues framed by the Tribunal submits that even Issue No.1 - 8 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 framed is erroneous. The entire issue states about the proving rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle, however the registration number of the scooter in which the petitioner was proceeding has been stated. Hence, the issue requires to be reframed. Accordingly, he sought to allow the appeal, set-aside the Judgment of the Tribunal and remand the matter. 12. Refuting the submissions, Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda., with all vehemence in his natural way submits that the Tribunal rightly not considered the evidence of PWs.3 and 4. The medical record which has been admitted by PW.1 in the cross-examination that it is he who has given the history of accident, itself speaks about the accident as there is a clear mention that it is a slip and fall from two wheeler. The Tribunal after assessing two statements regarding the history, one in the MLC and another in the discharge summary, has come to a conclusion that there is a clear mention of slip and fall from the two wheeler, rightly held that the claimant has failed to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle - 9 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 and dismissed the claim petition. The same is a well reasoned judgment and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 13. Having considered the submissions, perused the entire appeal paper and the Trial Court record. The following points would arise for consideration: (1) Whether the Tribunal is right in answering Issue No.1 in the Negative and against the claimant? (2) In the event, point No.1 is answered in favor of the claimant, whether the matter requires a remand before the Tribunal for consideration of claim petition on its merits so far as entitlement of compensation? 14. My answer to the above points for consideration is as under: Point No.1 : In the Negative. Point No.2 : In the Affirmative, for the following: REASONS 15. POINT NOS.1 AND 2: This Court finds that learned counsel appearing for the claimant is right in - 10 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 submitting that Issue No.1 framed is erroneous. A perusal of Issue No.1 framed by the Tribunal which has already been extracted above is erroneous as the entire language used clearly indicates that whether the petitioner proves that he met with an accident on 24.01.2013 due to rash and negligent riding of the Honda Activa, but the registration number is wrongly stated. In these circumstances, Issue No.1 is re-framed which reads as under: Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in road traffic accident that alleged to have been occurred on 24.01.2013 at about 11 a.m. on HBR Layout, 3rd Block, opposite to KEB Office, Bengaluru, was due to rash & negligent riding of the Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-53-V-4973 by its rider as alleged in the petition? 16. It is not in dispute that immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to the hospital. The claimant has clearly stated that he was in a semi- unconscious state when he was taken to hospital. He has suffered communited distal 1/3rd fracture of both bones of - 11 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 right leg and was under great shock and trauma. The accident had occurred on 24.01.2013 at about 11:00 am. The police who visited the hospital on intimation, recorded the statement at 05:00 pm., on the same day and registered the complaint thereafter in their police station Crime Number at 05:45 pm. In the statement, the claimant has clearly stated the way in which the accident had occurred. Except this MLC register, all the police records speak about the manner in which the accident had occurred and all the documents produced before the Tribunal points towards the rider of the offending vehicle, that he is responsible for the accident. The Tribunal in the teeth of these documents, however has given much importance to the sentence slip and fall from the two wheeler stated in the MLC register and discharge summary and considered the same to come to a conclusion that the claimant has not proved his case. The Tribunal has failed to consider the statements elicited in the cross- examination to the fact that the offending vehicle came and hit against the motorcycle in which the claimant was - 12 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 proceeding. Further the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence of PW.4 who is an eye witness. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW.4 to discredit his evidence in examination-in-chief. The suggestions which were put were denied. In the glaring evidence of PW.4 regarding the accident, the Tribunal has committed an error in law by giving over weightage to the history of the accident recorded in the MLC. The Tribunal failed to consider that the accident had occurred at 11:00 am., and the claimant was shifted immediately thereafter to the hospital and the MLC was recorded when he was brought to the hospital when the claimant was under great trauma and pain. In these circumstances, this Court finds force in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the claimant that the Tribunal has erred in law in answering Issue No.1 in the Negative. For the reasons stated supra, after going through the entire material placed on record, especially the evidence of PW.4, PW.1 and other materials i.e., the police records that in all probability, it is the rider of the offending vehicle is the reason for the accident and - 13 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 reframed Issue No.1 is accordingly answered in the Affirmative. 17. Having answered re-framed Issue No.1 in the Affirmative, now what remains is regarding the entitlement of compensation. A perusal of the Judgment clearly shows that the Tribunal has not at all touched this aspect of the matter i.e., is regarding entitlement and compensation. The Tribunal has answered this Issue as does not survive for consideration since the Issue No.1 has been answered in the Negative. In these circumstances, as the entitlement of compensation has not been dealt with by the Tribunal, the same requires to be answered by the Tribunal by providing appropriate opportunity to both sides to establish their case only in respect of compensation. In these circumstances, the matter requires a remand for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties with regard to compensation. 18. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds. The points for consideration are answered accordingly. This Court proceeds to pass the following: - 14 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 ORDER (i) The judgment and award dated 04.06.2015 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) in M.V.C.No.1207/2013 answering Issue No.1 in the Negative is set aside and Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. (ii) The matter stands remanded to the Tribunal for consideration of entitlement of compensation for the injuries suffered. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 02.04.2026. (iii) Considering the date of accident and the year of claim petition, this Court requests the Tribunal to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of nine months from the first date of appearance, by affording appropriate opportunity to both sides to put forth their case with respect to the entitlement of compensation. (iv) The parties shall co-operate with the trial before the Tribunal without seeking for any unnecessary adjournment. (v) Given the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to costs. - 15 - MFA No. 7135 of 2015 (vi) The registry is directed to send back the trial Court records forthwith before the first date of appearance fixed in this Order so as to enable the Tribunal to go on with the trial without causing any hindrance. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and remanded. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN