- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12872 MFA No. 3291 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3291 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: WENCESLAUS NORONHA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O EDWIN NORONHA R/AT #32, POST OFFICE ROAD, YELECHENAHALLI, BENGAURU - 560 078. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, BY ITS MANAGER. 2. YOGESHA, MAJOR, S/O LAKSHMAMMA, R/O HONNADEVIHALLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432. 3. BASAVEGOWDA D.M, MAJOR, S/O NINGEGOWDA R/O BEECHANAHALLIPURA, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 22.06.2023; R3 - SERVED) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12872 MFA No. 3291 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.571/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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.571/2015 dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Member, Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore, whereby the claim petition is dismissed, the claimant is before this Court. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 02.01.2015 at about 4.00 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding on Activa Honda on the left side of Kanakapura Main Road, at that time, one tractor-trailer driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Activa Honda. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries to his right chest and right shoulder. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Sai Ram Hospital, wherein he took treatment for one day as an inpatient and then shifted to SGARC hospital and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12872 MFA No. 3291 of 2016 was admitted as an inpatient and underwent surgery and he got discharged with an advice not to involve in any physical strain for a period of minimum six months. The Insurance Company has resisted the said claim and it is their case that the complaint is given after four days of the accident. However, reasons for the delay are not forthcoming. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that what made the P.W.3 not to lodge the complaint for four days, there is no explanation. All these factors create the doubt in the mind of the Court to believe the version of P.Ws.1 and 3. The document also not supports the case of the petitioner that the tractor was involved in the accident. Reasons assigned in the complaint is not satisfactory to come to the conclusion that the tractor was involved in the accident and IMV report also not placed before the Court. Hence, the Tribunal do not find any material before the Court to come to the conclusion that the tractor was involved in the accident and mere filing of charge sheet is not enough to come to the conclusion that the tractor was involved in the accident and the Tribunal also observes that it is the duty of the claimant to place the material before the Court to prove that the tractor was involved in the accident. Both in the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12872 MFA No. 3291 of 2016 written statement as well as in the evidence, the Insurance Company has specifically disputed the very involvement of the tractor in the accident and categorically suggested that in collusion with the insured, the police have falsely implicated the tractor and accordingly, the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- claimant submits that in the complaint they have satisfactorily explained the delay. Mere delay in filing the complaint cannot be a reason to disentitle the claimant from claiming the compensation. It is stated that the Tribunal had failed to consider both the oral and documentary evidence that is placed before the Court and without appreciating the evidence had dismissed the claim petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company submits that when the petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, the burden lies on the claimant to prove the same. When the complaint is given with the delay, the medical records that were placed before the Court do not support the case, particularly, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12872 MFA No. 3291 of 2016 extract of MLC register was not placed before the Court and nobody was examined on behalf Sai Ram Hospital, who had treated the claimant. As he has failed to prove that the accident had happened, the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the petition. There are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side, perused the material on record. The accident had taken place on 02.01.2015. Four days thereafter, the complaint was registered. It is the case that immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted in Sai Ram Hospital and he has not placed before the Court the extract of MLC register or he has not examined anybody from the Hospital to substantiate his claim that he has sustained injuries in the road accident. He relied on the wound certified which was issued from Sai Ram Hospital and discharge summary issued from SGARC hospital. Relying on these, the claimant submits that the accident has taken place. Immediately after the accident, if the claimant was admitted to the Sai Ram Hospital, the claimant ought to have filed the MLC register or he should have examined the doctors to show that he was admitted in the said hospital, except - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12872 MFA No. 3291 of 2016 marking Ex.P5 he has not examined any doctor in support of his case. Though it is stated that there is explanation with regard to the delay, the first document i.e., medical document which has proved the accident and the claimant admitted to the hospital, but in that regard, the petitioner had not adduced the sufficient evidence. Learned counsel submits that if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, he would mark the said documents. This is the M.V.C. of the year 2015 and in 2025, no purpose would be served if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. i) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. iii) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. KA CT: BHK Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE