- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22027 MFA No. 2510 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2510 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. CHANDRAIAH @ CHANDRU @CHANDRASHEKAR.B, SON OF SRI. BASAVALINGAIAH @ BASAVALINGAPPA @ BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOURAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DIST. TUMKUR-572 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MOHAN S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ANAND KUMAR K.N, S/O SRI.NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALLIPALYA, BYRENAHALLI VILLAGE, ARASAPURA POST, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISRICT TUMKUR-572 101. OWNER OF THE PIAGGIO APE BEARING NO.KA-06-TR-1358. 2. THE MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22027 MFA No. 2510 of 2015 2ND FLOOR, JP & DEV JAMBIKESHWAR ARCADE, 69, MILLER ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANESH M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.425/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, ADDITIONAL MACT-V, TUMKUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 6th February 2015, passed by the Fast Track Court & Addl.MACT-V, Tumakuru, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.425/2011. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 06.12.2010, at about 9.30 p.m., the claimant and one Rajanna were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22027 MFA No. 2510 of 2015 No.KA-06-EX-5713. Rajanna was riding the motorcycle and claimant was the pillion rider. At Panagar Rajanna's garden land, on Koratagere-Thovinakere road, claimant met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of Piaggio Ape vehicle bearing registration No.KA-06-TR-1358/2010-11 (for short, `offending vehicle') by its driver. As a result, claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to District Government Hospital, Tumakuru, wherein he was treated as an inpatient from 07.12.2010 to 30.12.2010. He spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. The claimant was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and was an agriculturist and businessman and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.8 lakhs. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending autorickshaw. Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the contentions of the claimant. It contended that the claimant just to claim compensation, created the story of accident. Further it is contended that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22027 MFA No. 2510 of 2015 claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination. 6. The claimant to prove his case examined himself as PW-1 and marked 38 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-38. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked one document as Ex.R-1. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim petition; The claimant was called by different name in his native place; His name is Chandraiah; The Tribunal has taken note of this, but, held that the other records produced by the claimant are inconsistent and, therefore, not sufficient to establish that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22027 MFA No. 2510 of 2015 claimant was the victim of the said accident. Hence, it dismissed the claim petition, which is highly erroneous and not in accordance with law. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Omkar @ Panjilal -vs- Chandrika Prasad1. With the above reasons, prayed to allow the appeal and to award just and reasonable amount of compensation. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, the insurer, contended that the materials placed by the claimant himself were inconsistent. The claimant stated before the Medical Officer at the hospital where he was admitted immediately after the accident that he was riding the motorcycle and Rajanna was the pillion rider. In his cross-examination, the claimant admitted giving this statement but volunteered that it was wrongly recorded. However, no steps were taken to rectify the said mistake. 11. Learned counsel further contended that, in his cross- examination, PW-1 admitted that he was the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-06-EX-5713 and he 1 2003 1 MPWN 83 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22027 MFA No. 2510 of 2015 kept the said vehicle for his business purposes for four years, during which it was used by his younger brothers.. He stated that, he had purchased the policy, but, he does not know from where he purchased it. He also pleads ignorance about the driver and other particulars of the auto. It was suggested to him that he was riding the motorcycle and he fell down from the said vehicle and sustained injuries and just to claim the compensation, he created a false story of the accident, which was denied by him. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that, according to Ex.P-1, claimant was taken to hospital in an ambulance by one Vasanth. Ex.R-1 shows that one Smt.Ramakka was present at the time of admitting him to the hospital. Claimant has not examined any of the said persons to prove his identity. He has not produced any of the identity card issued either by Election Commission or Aadhar card etc., The matter was pending before the Tribunal for about four years and even till this date, before this Court, he has not produced any documents to show that he is the very same person who sustained injuries in the vehicle accident. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22027 MFA No. 2510 of 2015 Therefore, claimant has not approached this Court with clean hands. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. The submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is tenable. The Tribunal has noted the very same facts while dismissing the claim petition. FIR was lodged after two days delay. The incident occurred on 06.12.2010 and FIR was registered on 08.12.2010. According to the claimant, he was under treatment, therefore, he could not file the complaint in time. Had he provided the information of the accident to the Medical Officer, then, as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the concerned doctor would have been duty-bound to inform the police. It is not necessary for the patient himself to personally go to the police station and lodge the complaint. 14. The said Rajanna, who was riding the motorcycle, has made no attempt to either shift the injured claimant to the hospital or lodge a complaint at the police station. He was not examined by the claimant to prove that Rajanna was riding the motorcycle and Chandrashekar @ Chandraiah, was the pillion rider. It remains unexplained as to why the claimant kept him - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22027 MFA No. 2510 of 2015 away from the Court. It is also not the case of claimant that said Rajanna also sustained any injury, which is doubtful. 15. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the insurer, the claimant could have produced any identity card to prove his identity. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he completed his BA Degree in the year 1994. He must have had his Aadhar card or ration card or any identity card to prove his identity. None of them have been placed on record. Considering the entire cross-examination, it appears the person who sustained injuries in the vehicle accident and the claimant are totally different. Not only that, but even occurrence of accident is doubtful. 16. Further, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in Omkar @ Panjilal’s case (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the facts therein are materially different. In the present case, the identity of the claimant was disputed, and PW-1 was subjected to thorough cross-examination on this aspect. Additionally, rebuttal evidence was adduced by the insurer in this regard. The conduct of the claimant also supports the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22027 MFA No. 2510 of 2015 contention of the respondent-insurer. Had the claimant produced any valid identity card to establish that he was indeed the same person involved in the accident, the matter would have stood differently. In the case cited above, there was no such dispute regarding identity throughout the proceedings. The Hon’ble High Court accepted that a person may be known by two names, and that such a fact alone cannot be a ground to deny compensation. However, in the present case, since the identity of the claimant, as well as accident, are in dispute, hence the principles of law laid down in the above-cited case do not assist the claimant’s case." Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the evidence of PW-1. I do not find any reason to interfere in the said findings. 17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 6th February 2015, passed in MVC.No.425/2011, by the Fast Track Court and Addl.MACT-V, Tumakuru, stands confirmed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22027 MFA No. 2510 of 2015 Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17