- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7295 MFA No. 5220 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5220 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 301-304, NO. 28M, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KEMPARAJU, S/O NAGARAJU, NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, NO. 240, SURADENUPURA, HESARAGATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 073. 2. NARASIMHAIAH, S/O MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED MAJOR, NO. 64, SURADENUPURA VILLAGE RAJANKUNTE POST, HESARAGATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 073. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASUDEVA MURTHY B.K, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.06.2017, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7295 MFA No. 5220 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.6928/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,79,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Pradeep.B, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. No representation on respondents side on call. 3. The Insurance Company against whom liability is fastened by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through orders in M.V.C. No.6928/2011 dated 02.06.2014 is before this Court challenging the said order. 4. Arguing the matter, Sri. Pradeep.B, learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.1/claimant laid a false claim and the same was entertained by the Tribunal and ultimately compensation - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7295 MFA No. 5220 of 2014 was awarded in his favour. Learned counsel submits that the manner of happening of accident as projected by respondent No.1 is false and indeed respondent No.1 sustained injuries due to self fall. 5. Learned counsel also states that complaint was given to police belatedly and there was delay of 6 days in lodging complaint to police. But without considering all these aspects, the tribunal awarded compensation and directed the appellant to pay the same and therefore the present appeal is filed. 6. As per the version of respondent No.1 that is the claimant, on 13.09.2011 while he was traveling in a mini bus bearing registration No.KA-18-C-5399, the Driver of the bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and dashed against a lorry which was parked at the extreme left side of the road. Due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. The date of accident is 13.09.2011. However, complaint was given to police as per the contents of the Ex.P-1 on 19.09.2011. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7295 MFA No. 5220 of 2014 7. In Ex.P-1-complaint there is a clear mention about the manner in which the accident occurred. That apart, the police who investigated the case, laid charge sheet against the driver of the mini bus as per the contents of Ex.P-2. The appellant, only basing on a bare statement that is mentioned by the hospital authorities in progress record which is part of Ex.P11 that respondent No.1 informed that he sustained injuries due to self fall, is before this Court. However, the same hospital authorities have mentioned in all other medical record which includes Ex.P6-wound certificate and Ex.P7-discharge summary that respondent No.1 was admitted to hospital with alleged history of road traffic accident on 13.09.2011. Sufficient material is brought on record in the form of evidence by respondent No.1 to show that the accident occurred in the manner he projected. 8. Perceiving all these factors, the tribunal has rightly fastened the liability against the appellant who is the Insurer of the offending vehicle. This Court therefore, does - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7295 MFA No. 5220 of 2014 not find any grounds to interfere with the reasoned order that is passed by the tribunal covering all the factual aspects of the case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present appeal is required to be dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Amount if any, in deposit be transmitted to the concerned tribunal immediately. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59 CT: BHK