- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26755 MFA No. 4168 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4168 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SATHISHA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LAKSMANAGOWDA, R/O CHIKKANNANAPALYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARISH, AND SRI. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATES FOR SRI. PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B.K. NAGARAJAPPA AGED 39 YEARS , S/O KOTEKULLAPPA, R/O BITTANAKURKE VILLAGE, DABBEGHATTA POST, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. 2. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.41, II FLOOR, LEVELLE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK H, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26755 MFA No. 4168 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.8.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.83/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MADHUGIRI DISMISSING THE PETITION WITH COSTS. 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 against the judgment and award dated 14.08.2013 passed in MVC No.83/2010 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT - XII, Madhugiri. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.05.2010, at about 7.00 a.m., the claimant was going by walk on the left side of the road. When he reached KEB office, Madhugiri, at that time, a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-06-EE-768 driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner hit the claimant. As a result, he fell down and sustained fracture on both the bones of right leg. He took treatment as inpatient and spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. He suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26755 MFA No. 4168 of 2014 the accident. With these reasons seek to award compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 was ex-parte before the Tribunal and Respondent No.2 contended before the Tribunal that the said vehicle was not involved in the incident. There was delay of nearly three months from the date of alleged incident to file the complaint. It denied the averments in the claim petition and also denied its liability to pay compensation. And prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P18. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked Exs.R1 to R3. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the materials available on record, disbelieved the contention of the claimant that he met with an accident and sustained injuries by involvement of the offending vehicle and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26755 MFA No. 4168 of 2014 dismissed the claim petition by impugned judgment. The same is challenged in the present appeal. 8. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant argued in line with grounds of appeal and submitted that the injured was referred to the doctor, stating that he fell due to the impact of the accident. However, the doctor has not properly noted this history and wrongly recorded it as self fall. A criminal case was registered against rider of the motorcycle, and he was charge sheeted. The delay in lodging the complaint is properly explained in the FIR, but the same was not considered by the Tribunal. Therefore it is prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and award a just and reasonable amount of compensation. 9. Learned counsel for R-2 supports the impugned judgment and submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the materials available on record and has rightly dismissed the claim petition, hence, it does not call for interference by this court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26755 MFA No. 4168 of 2014 10. I have carefully perused records and impugned judgment. Undisputedly complaint was lodged after 3 months from the alleged incident. Reasons assigned for delay in lodging FIR is doubtful. In the normal circumstances no prudent person would wait for such long period unless the wrong doer is friend, relative or known person. Hence it can be inferred that just to suit his purpose said reason was assigned. Had injured informed about accident and suffered injuries to the doctor, in all probability doctor would send information to the nearest police station. Moreover why would the doctor make a wrong entry in medical records without information by the injured? 11. Tribunal has discussed in detail about these facts and rightly came to conclusion that claimant had not sustained injuries in the accident. There are no reasons to interfere in the finding of the Tribunal. Merely the concerned investigating officer without looking at the medical records submitted charge sheet, cannot be ground to accept the same. The said prima- facie case is disproved by the insurer. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26755 MFA No. 4168 of 2014 12. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. Accordingly I pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 14.08.2013 passed in MVC No.83/2010 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-XII, Madhugiri is confirmed. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE SNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK