- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6362 MFA No. 8561 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8561 OF 2016(MV-I) BETWEEN: BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KASTURI MANSION, II FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, ABOVE CANARA BANK, TUMAKURU TOWN, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRAKASH, S/O. RANGASWAMY, NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. N. NANDIHALLIPALYA VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK, NOW R/AT C/O. DODDAHANUMAIAH, CHOKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR TOLL GATE, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK-572 140. 2. G. KESHAVAMURTHY S/O. GANGANNA, NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT GEJJAGADAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6362 MFA No. 8561 of 2016 ARALUMALLIGE POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.863/13 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT-XI, TUMAKURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,82,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Ramesh Kumar R.V., learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. The insurance company which was directed to pay compensation to the claimant is before this Court challenging the order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XI, Tumakuru, in MVC No.863/2013 dated 08.06.2016. 3. Through his effective submission learned counsel for the appellant Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy tried to establish - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6362 MFA No. 8561 of 2016 before this Court that respondent No.1 sustained injuries due to self fall from a motor vehicle due to its skid. Learned counsel submits that the accident did not occur due to the negligence on part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA.43 L-4622. Learned counsel states that indeed the claimant i.e. respondent No.1 herein fell from a motor vehicle over which he was traveling and thus sustained injuries. Learned counsel placed much reliance on the contents of Ex.R1 - MLC Register Extract. Submitting that no person is entitled to play fraud upon the Court, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision that is rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajendra Singh and another reported in LAWS(SC)-2000-3-21. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Gourabai and Others reported in (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 165. 4. Per contra, the submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that, respondent No.1 and his wife were waiting for a bus by standing near the bus stop on the date of accident and at that time the rider of motor bike - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6362 MFA No. 8561 of 2016 bearing Registration No.KA.43 L-4622 came riding his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against respondent No.1, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and fell unconscious. Learned counsel states that as the wife of respondent No.1 was attending him, she could not give compliant to police immediately and the complaint was lodged after 14 days. However, after thorough investigation police laid charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle having found genuineness in the contents of the complaint lodged. The Tribunal appreciating the said fact, held that the appellant herein is liable to pay compensation being the insurer of the offending vehicle and thus the award of the Tribunal is valid in all aspects. 5. The contents of Ex.R1- MLC Register Extract reveals a mention "alleged history of RTA today afternoon following skid and fall near mensi gate @ 4.00 p.m. Vehicle No.KA.06. 3199, pt. not willing for MLC." The said document also reveals that the brothers of respondent No.1 i.e. Sri.Prasad and Sri.Ravi have signed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6362 MFA No. 8561 of 2016 6. Production of a document does not mean that the genuineness of its contents was established before the Tribunal. The appellant herein who placed much reliance upon the contents of Ex.R1 ought to have summoned the Author of the said document or any of the hospital authorities to establish before the Tribunal that the said document indeed was issued on the alleged date mentioned therein, that too by the said hospital. 7. A perusal of the contents of Ex.P2- wound certificate discloses that the said wound certificate was issued by the same hospital which issued Ex.R1. In Ex.P2 there is a clear mention that respondent No.1 was admitted to hospital on 09.09.2013 with the history of road traffic accident on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. Why contradictory statements were made at Exs.R1 and Ex.P2 is not known. But respondent No.1 i.e. the claimant succeeded in establishing that basing on the contents of Ex.P1 - complaint, police investigated into the case and laid charge sheet as mentioned in Ex.P4 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle as pleaded by respondent No.1- claimant. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6362 MFA No. 8561 of 2016 8. The established principle of law is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals are required to follow summary procedure and that the claims have to be decided basing on preponderance of probabilities. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. In the case on hand, the evidence produced by respondent No.1 through Exs.P1, P3 and P4 establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor bike bearing registration No.KA.43 L- 4622. On the other hand, by failing to establish the genuineness of Exs.R1 and R2, the appellant could not succeed in establishing its defense that the accident occurred due to self fall of respondent No.1 from the motor cycle. Therefore, this Court holds that the Tribunal did not err in awarding compensation to the respondent No.1 - claimant and ordering the appellant to pay the same being the insurer of the offending vehicle. 9. Another plea is taken by the appellant in respect of awarding rate of interest. In this regard the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellant is that, the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum, but during the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6362 MFA No. 8561 of 2016 relevant period, the rate of interest that is fixed by the banking authorities is 6% per annum. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant did not deny the genuineness in the said submission. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to reduce the rate of interest from 8% to 6% per annum, as prayed for. Thus, the following ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is granted by the Tribunal be paid to respondent No.1-claimant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58