- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13688 MFA No. 4072 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4072 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHIVANANDA K.S., S/O SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT KOTHAGERE VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAGHURAM C.A. C/O THOUSIF ALI KHAN, AGED ABOUT YEARS, NO.D2, LIVE-IN-STYLE, POTTARY ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE- 560 005 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KASTURI MANSION, ABOVE CORPORATION BANK, BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES, M.G.ROD, TUMKUR-572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY Smt.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5204/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13688 MFA No. 4072 of 2016 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ‘DISMISSAL’, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition in MVC.No.5204/2013 dated 08.04.2015 by the XVI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, the appellant/claimant is before this Court. 2. The claimant had filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. It is the case of the claimant that on 12.05.2013 at 8.45 am., the claimant was proceeding on a motor bike as a pillion rider. The said motorcycle was ridden by one Muddegowda. When they reached near under bridge of NH-75 New Bypass, Begur, at that time, TVS XL Super came at very high speed in rash and negligent manner and took sudden right turn and dashed against the motor bike. Due to the impact, the claimant and rider of the motor bike fell down and the claimant sustained injuries. Immediately, the claimant was taken to CHC, Kunigal and then, he was shifted to Adithya Orthopaedic and Trauma - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13688 MFA No. 4072 of 2016 Centre, Tumkur wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 12.05.2013 to 10.06.2013. The claimant had sustained communicated right tibial condyle fracture with vascular injury, impleading compartment syndrome. The claimant underwent surgery of right leg and ORIF with buttress plates fixation and fasciotomy done and he was discharged with an advice of take follow up treatment and bed rest and he had spent Rs.1,35,000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition observing that according to PW1 that the rider Muddegowda sustained simple injuries in the accident. The said injured kept quite for 16 days to report the matter to police. The charge sheet does not disclose that the complainant Muddegowda sustained any injury. The said Muddegowda has not made any efforts to get back his motorcycle immediately. The claimant has not produced the wound certificate issued by CHC, Kunigal wherein he was admitted. There are no details of date, time and place of accident and vehicles involved therein in the medical records. Oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and contents of Exs.P1 to 15 indicate that on 12.05.2013, the claimant met with a RTA and sustained fracture injury, but the contents of police records and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13688 MFA No. 4072 of 2016 medical records are inconsistent with the manner of accident and involvement of TVS XL Super as deposed by the claimant. The delay in lodging complaint is unexplained. The Tribunal also observed that there were no damages to both the vehicles and further, there was no chance of motorcycle lying in the place of accident for 17 days and also no evidence as to sustaining of injuries by the rider of motorcycle and by the rider of TVS XL. Therefore, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident and accordingly, dismissed the petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that when the medical records are consistence and also pointing out at the negligence of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal had failed to consider the same and dismissed the petition. It is submitted that in fact, the claimant had discharged his burden and the burden lies on the insurance company which they failed to discharge and still the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ Insurance Company submits that when the claimant had admitted in the CHC, Kunigal hospital and later shifted to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13688 MFA No. 4072 of 2016 hospital at Tumkur, he has not filed the MLC register or any other relevant documents before the Court. Ex.P.5, the wound certificate only refers to RTA and no other details are found in Ex.P.5. It is stated that the Tribunal had rightly observed about the involvement of the vehicle, the discrepancies in charge sheet and in the evidence of PW1 with regard to the injuries sustained by Muddegowda and also the delay of 16 days in filing the complaint, had rightly dismissed the petition and it is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. In this case, the complaint is given 16 days from the date of the accident. The rider of the vehicle is one Muddegowda, according to the claimant, he had sustained simple injuries. As per the FIR, it is not mentioned on what reason the complaint is given after 16 days from the accident, there is no explanation forthcoming. When there is already a delay in filing the complaint, if the claimant had sustained injuries and was admitted in the hospital, the MLC register extract should have been placed before the Court. The claimant had failed to place the same and considering the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13688 MFA No. 4072 of 2016 delay, the case of PW1 and the discrepancy in the medical records, the Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that the claimant has failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are based on evidence and no interference is called for. 6. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed. i. 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. ii. No costs. iii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8