- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18637 MFA No. 1774 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1774 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: RAGHUNANDAN N., S/O. N.R. NAGARAJA, AGED 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.252, DEVAVRINDA, 1ST FLOOR, III CROSS, V MAIN ROAD, CANARA BANK COLONY, NAGARABHAVI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052. …APPELLANT (BY SRI K. V. SHYAMPRASADA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. VAISHNAVI PACKAGING (PVT) LTD., BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BEGUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076. 2. M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., GROUND FLOOR, NO.31, TBR TOWER, I CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD, NEAR BENGALURU STOCK EXCHANGE, BANGALORE - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18637 MFA No. 1774 of 2015 (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI K.R. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.6069/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This is claimant's appeal against judgment and award dated 19.11.2014 passed by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (SCCH-18), (for short as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.6069/2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.05.2012 at about 12.15 p.m., the petitioner was travelling in Tempo traveller bearing Reg.No.KA-02-C-9178 as an employee of Tesco Hindustan Service Centre, Bangalore. He met with an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18637 MFA No. 1774 of 2015 accident, due to rash and negligent driving of a LMV-Goods Carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AB-4766, by its driver. As a result of which, claimant sustained grievous injuries and he has been suffering from permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.2-insurer in his written statement denied the contentions of the claim petition and denied his liability to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues for its determination. 6. The claimant to prove his case examined 2 witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. Respondents examined 2 witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and marked 10 documents as Exs.R1 to R10. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. Since both the issues were answered in the negative, the Tribunal has not considered issue - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18637 MFA No. 1774 of 2015 Nos.3 and 4 and by the impugned judgment, dismissed the claim petition. The same is challenged in the present appeal by the claimant. 8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 9. The only question that arises for determination is: "Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that accident was not proved? 10. It is the evidence of PW.1 that incident had taken place on 08.05.2012 at about 12.15 p.m. Admittedly, the claimant was working in Tesco Hindustan Service Centre, Whitefield, Bangalore, as a Financial Head. As per the evidence of PW-1 as well as petition averments, immediately after the accident, he was taken to Vydehi Hospital, at Bengaluru for treatment. From that hospital he was shifted to Sharavathi Hospital in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After following certain procedures, he was shifted to Cauvery Orthopedic Centre, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Again in the said hospital, certain procedures were done and at last he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital. The records reveal that information of the accident - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18637 MFA No. 1774 of 2015 was first time given to the concerned Police Station on 02.06.2012. Reasons for the delay is mentioned in the FIR and it is stated that the concerned owner of the vehicle assured the claimant that he would pay the treatment expenses and thereafter, he did not pay it. Thereafter, the claimant filed the complaint. The FIR also reveals that he was unaware about the name and where about of the owner as well as the registration number of the said vehicle. Under these circumstances, the contention of the claimant that he believed the version of the owner of the said vehicle that he would pay the medical expenses is also not a believable story. 11. As per the petition averments as well as the evidence of PW-1, he was visiting different hospital for treatment till 18.06.2012. As per the evidence of RW-2, none of the hospitals have sent the information to the police regarding the incident. 12. Normally, in case of treatment of victims of MLC cases, the concerned hospital would enquire regarding history and note down in the MLC registers. They also intimate to the concerned police. In this case, claimant did not produce any - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18637 MFA No. 1774 of 2015 such records to prove his case. The matter was pending before the Tribunal for nearly about two years and nothing prevented the appellant from producing the said relevant documents. The Tribunal in detail considered all these facts and held that contention of the claimant that he sustained injuries in the vehicle accident is not believable. Even in this appeal, the appellant has not produced any documents or materials to substantiate his contentions. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that the finding of the Tribunal is incorrect, arbitrary and unjustifiable. 13. In view of the said reasons, claimant/appellant has failed to prove that he sustained injury in a vehicle accident, involving the vehicle mentioned supra. From the said discussion, I answer above point in the negative. 14. For the reasons discussed above, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18637 MFA No. 1774 of 2015 ii. Impugned judgment and award dated 19.11.2014 passed in MVC No.6069/2012 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) is confirmed. iii. Send back TCR with copy of judgment to trial Court. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3