- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753 MFA No. 202422 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202422/2018(MV-I) BETWEEN: PARWATI W/O SOPAN KOLI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O BAWACHI, TQ. MANGALWEDA, NOW RESIDING AT GANESH NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR-586 103. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ARUN S/O SIDARAM KOLI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, A/P BORALE, TQ. MANGALWEDA, DIST. SOLAPUR-431 401, NOW RESIDING AT GANESH NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR-586 103. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, SANGAM BUILDING, S.S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101, …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE, FOR R2; R1- NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753 MFA No. 202422 of 2018 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.08.2018 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IV, VIJAYPUR IN MVC NO.1443/2014 AND ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI) 1. Though this appeal is slated for admission, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company. 3. The petitioner in MVC No.1443/2014, who suffered dismissal of the same at the hands of the III - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753 MFA No. 202422 of 2018 Additional District Judge and M.A.C.T., Vijayapura, has approached this Court in this appeal. 4. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner are that on 09.10.2023 at about 5.30 p.m., when the petitioner was pillion rider on the bike bearing No.MH- 13/Y-7741, another motorcycle bearing No.MH-13/BJ- 4782 came in rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. She suffered multiple injuries on the head and parietal region and she was taken to Janakalyan Hospital, Pandharpur, then to Gangamai Hospital, Solapur. Claiming that she was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and by working as a Coolie she was earning Rs.7,500/- per month, she approached the Tribunal seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending motorcycle. 5. On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 – - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753 MFA No. 202422 of 2018 Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement. Though the Insurance Company admitted coverage of the insurance policy, it was alleged that the petitioner had colluded with respondent No.1 and the police officials; and has played fraud to implicate the motorcycle of respondent No.1. It was alleged that the complaint was filed before the Police after more than 2½ months of the accident and the delay was not explained properly. It was contended that the rider of the offending motorcycle was a person known to the petitioner and therefore, the delay in filing the complaint tells a tale that it is a case of false implication. Apart from that, it was contended that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated and therefore, it’s liability to pay the compensation be absolved. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and two witnesses were examined on her behalf as PWs.2 and 3. Exs.P1 to P18 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753 MFA No. 202422 of 2018 were marked in support of the petition. Respondent No.2 produced the insurance policy and the same was marked as Ex.R1. 7. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the Tribunal held that the accident has not been proved and therefore dismissed the petition. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- petitioner would submit that the Wound Certificate, even though mention that the injuries suffered by the petitioner was due to ‘fall from bike’, the other documents including the investigation papers show that there was an accident. When the respondent No.1 has not challenged this investigation and the charge-sheet, the same holds good and it should not have been discarded by the Tribunal. He contends that, the delay in filing the FIR is explained properly and therefore, the conclusions of the Tribunal are - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753 MFA No. 202422 of 2018 not correct. He points out that no rebuttal evidence has been lead by the respondent Nos.1 or 2 and when the respondent No.1 did not appear and denied the accident, it was not proper on the part of the Tribunal to dismiss the petition. 10. Per contra, Smt.Sangeetha Bhadrashetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that in the cross-examination of the PW.1 she admits that the respondent No.1 is her relative. If at all the respondent No.1 was known to her as a relative, nothing prevented the petitioner or the respondent No.1 to report the same to the police at the earliest point of time. Therefore, the knowledge of PW.1 about respondent No.1 having committed the accident, and such acquaintance of the respondent No.1 having not been mentioned anywhere else shows that the conduct of the respondent No.1 is not believable. Therefore, she contends that the testimony of the PW.1 is also not reliable. It is further submitted that the eyewitness to the accident also did not file any - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753 MFA No. 202422 of 2018 complaint to the police and therefore, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is proper and no interference is required. 11. The MLC records of the hospital show that petitioner went to Gangamai hospital, Solapur on 10.10.2023 and her son Ramesh had admitted her to the hospital. The history furnished was that she fell from the bike due to giddiness. It is relevant to note that she was taken to Gangamai hospital on 10.10.2013 and the accident had occurred on 09.10.2023. At the earliest point of time, the collision by another motorcycle was not mentioned. This raises doubt about the involvement of the vehicle. 12. The perusal of the impugned judgment would show that in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 the Tribunal observed as below: “12) I.A.No.V was filed to issue summons to the Hospital to produce documents. Accordingly, PW.2 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753 MFA No. 202422 of 2018 produced Ex.P.15 authorization letter and Ex.P.16 entire case sheet maintained by Gangamai Hospital, Solapur, MLC certificate forthcoming from the said case sheet is in Marathi. One of the Doctor's notes is also in Marathi. Claimant was directed to file translated copies and said documents. Claimant's counsel filed copies of entire case sheet along with translation of said documents and translator's affidavit on 20.07.2018. Medico Legal Certificate particulars disclose that, the patient went to the Gangamai Hospital, Solapur on 10.10.2013 at 12-45 a.m., case was registered as MLC.No.450. Her son Ramesh Koli admitted her and history was furnished that, claimant sustained injuries on 09.10.2013 at 6- 00 p.m. near Borale Naka, Mangalaweda when she suffered from giddiness and fell down from bike while proceeding. 13) Above discussed facts establish that, claimant's son was not seriously injured. He lodged no complaint. No complaint was lodged for 70 days and more after the accident. Alleged bike which caused the accident was not seized. History furnished before the Gangamal Hospital, Solapur while admitting the claimant establishes that, claimant suffered from giddiness, fell down from bike and sustained injuries. Spot mahazar discloses that, accident was taken place when bike was about to pass speed breaker in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753 MFA No. 202422 of 2018 the city. Though, rider of the bike belonging to respondent No.1 is admittedly relative of claimant, claimant and her son were not able to identify him and his bike. Why history was furnished to Gangamai Hospital, Solapur while admitting the claimant that, she suffered from giddiness, fell down from bike and sustained injuries remained unexplained. Insurance company raised objection that, case is based on created story, bike is falsely implicated and fraud is played.. In view of the history furnished to the Hospital, claimant has failed to prove the alleged accident. Though police have filed charge sheet against the rider of insured bike, charge sheet is not conclusive proof and allegations made therein needs proof like any other facts. Claimant herein failed to discharge initial burden to prove the alleged accident. It appears that, she sustained injuries under the circumstances forthcoming from MLC particulars and later on bike is falsely implicated after thought and due deliberation. Though case was registered as MLC, no police visited the Hospital and enquired the claimant. Claimant's counsel has relied upon the [2007 Kant MAC 739 (Kant)] Kumar Shubham Vs. Siddalingappa and another and AIR 2011 SC 1226 Ravi Vs. Badarinarayan contending that, delay is not a sole ground to dismiss the claim petition.” - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753 MFA No. 202422 of 2018 13. The petitioner or PW.2 having not explained as to why complaint was not lodged at the earliest point of time and as to why the name of the respondent No.1 was not disclosed raised serious doubt about the claim that the motorcycle owned by this respondent No.1 was involved in the accident. If at all it was hit by offending motorcycle, definitely that should have been mentioned in the MLC report of the hospital. The word ‘giddiness’ mentioned in the records shows that there was no such collision by another vehicle. 14. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE SBS,SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38 CT: AK