- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14625 MFA No. 2736 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2736 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GIC LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, CHRISTU COMPLEX, LEVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE - 01, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MAANGER, IFFCO TOKIO GIC LTD., CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER, SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, NO.141, 3RD MAIN, EAST NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H.C. NARAYANA REDDY, S/O LATE CHOWDAREDDY, NOW AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, MENTALLY UNSOUND, REP. BY HIS WIFE NEXT FRIEND, SMT. M. GOWRAMMA, W/O H.C. NARAYANAREDDY, R/O HULIMANGALA, HOSAKOTE VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. 2. K. CHIKKAIAH, S/O LATE KANDAPPA, R/O NO.39, 7TH CROSS, 18TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 29. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N. GOPALA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14625 MFA No. 2736 of 2015 NO.4009/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 13TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.6,84,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed in M.V.C.No.4009/2011 dated 7.10.2014 by the XIII Addl. Small Cause Judge & Member, MACT, Bangalore, the Insurance Company is before this Court. 2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 07.10.2010, the claimant was going to Attibele town from Hosur town on his TVS moped. At about 11:30 a.m., when he came near Jujuwadi check post, the Pulsar motor cycle came from the same direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his moped. Due to the impact, he fell down and suffered grievous and other injuries all over the body. The Insurance Company had denied the accident and it is their case that the accident had taken place on 07.10.2010 and the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14625 MFA No. 2736 of 2015 complaint was given on 02.11.2010. It is the case that even the police have filed a final report that the same may be treated as mistake of fact and the Insurance Company had denied the accident and the involvement of the vehicle. On behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R5 were marked. Ex.R1 is the true copy of the final report, Exs.R2 and R3 are true copies of the IMV reports, Ex.R4 is the authorization letter and Exs.R5 is the true copy of the policy. The Tribunal had granted the compensation of an amount of Rs.6,84,000/-. When it comes to the liability and the involvement of the vehicle, it is stated that he noticed the rider of the pulser motorcycle who was present near the accident spot but the rider was aged 42-45 years. He has voluntarily deposed that many people gathered near the accident place. He has denied that the pulser motorcycle is falsely implicated. There is no rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of the pulsar motorcycle. The Insurance Company had examined its Legal Manager-RW.2 who had deposed that in response to the Court summons, he had produced true copies of the final report and accident - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14625 MFA No. 2736 of 2015 information report and he has stated that the Investigating Officer after investigation, has submitted final report stating that the crime may be treated as a mistake of fact. The Court had disbelieved the said evidence as he is not the Investigating Officer of the case. He does not know the contents of Ex.R1 personally. It is deposed by the respondent that the police authorities have clearly mentioned that alleged accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of the TVS moped by the claimant and the claimant had misrepresented the true facts. Hence, they have closed the case as mistake of fact and also observes that even if it is accepted that the police have filed the final report as per Ex.R1, admittedly, it is final report filed as the case may be treated as mistake of fact, but there is no negligence attributed on the part of the petitioner stating that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the petitioner and the Tribunal has held that the accident has happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending vehicle and considering the evidence on preponderance of probability, the Tribunal had held that the accident took place because of the negligent riding of the rider - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14625 MFA No. 2736 of 2015 of the offending vehicle and proceeded to grant the compensation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company submits that when the final report is filed stating that it is on mistake of fact and when there is a clear delay of 25 days in giving the complaint, no reason is forthcoming and though there is no satisfactory explanation for the same delay, the Tribunal had not taken that into consideration. It is submitted that when the involvement of the vehicle itself is doubtful and where the final report is not questioned by the claimant, the Tribunal cannot give such a finding that because of the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle, the accident has happened. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ claimant submits that Ex.R1 is the final report and the author of the said document is not examined. It is submitted that by examining PW.2, the claimant has established the involvement of the vehicle and the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered all these aspects and rightly held that the vehicle is involved in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14625 MFA No. 2736 of 2015 the accident. There is negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. He submits that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is a well-considered one and now no interference is called for from this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The accident had taken place on 07.10.2010 and the complaint was given on 02.11.2010. There is a delay of 25 days in giving the complaint. In every case, the delay in giving the complaint cannot be the fatal to the case of the claimant. For giving the complaint with such delay, the reasons have to be properly explained. On the face of it, in this case, the reasons for delay are not properly explained. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and submits that mere delay in filing the complaint cannot be a ground to disentitle the claimant from claiming the compensation. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Unless and until the said delay is properly explained, the Court has to take that aspect also into consideration. With regard to the accident, when once the final report is filed stating that it is on mistake of fact, it is for the claimant to question it. Whether the claimant has questioned it - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14625 MFA No. 2736 of 2015 or not, no submissions are made in that regard. But in turn, learned counsel for the claimant submits that unless and until the author of the said document is examined, it cannot be considered. This Court is not able to appreciate the said contention. Considering the delay in filing the complaint, which will definitely go to the root of the matter and in the light of Ex.R1, this Court is of the view that the claimant has failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle and negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. Hence, this Court is passing the following: i) The judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.4009/2011 dated 7.10.2014 by the XIII Addl. Small Cause Judge & Member, MACT, Bangalore, is hereby set-aside. ii) The appeal is allowed. iii) The Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the amount. iv) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA CT: BHK