- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33083 MFA No. 7748 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7748 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., S.S. COMPLEX, SUBASH SQUARE HASSAN, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI - 580 020. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANJEGOWDA S/O JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HOSAPATTANA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK - 573 213. 2. KUMAR BALU S/O BALARAMAIAH, NARASIMHASWAMY NILAYA GOWDANAPALYA SUBRAMANYANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (R1 SD. V/O DT. 20/2/24, NOTICE TO R2 H/S.) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33083 MFA No. 7748 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1056/12 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, MEMBER, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.63,169/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 01.09.2016 passed in M.V.C.No.1056 of 2012, by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. Inspite of service of notice on the respondents, they remained unrepresented and they are set ex-parte. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33083 MFA No. 7748 of 2016 3. The injured claimant has filed the claim application, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident that took place on 15.03.2004. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record granted Rs.63,169/- with intere at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit of the amount before the Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that in Ex.P9 - MLC Extract, it was mentioned that the vehicle is not known. Subsequently, the vehicle number was inserted as KA-05-P-6519 Jeep and thus, there is implication of the vehicle, but it was not considered by the Tribunal in a proper perspective. The complaint was given on the next day, but the delay in filing the complaint is not looked into. Respondent No.1 did not turn up and he has not produced IMV reports of both the vehicles. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33083 MFA No. 7748 of 2016 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following citations: United India Insurance Co.Ltd v/s Rajendra Singh1 State of Andhra Pradesh and Another v/s T.Suryachandra Rao2 Ravi s/o Chandrappa v/s Govindappa and Another3 K.E.Basavarajappa v/s Cahndrappa4 6. On perusal of the record, it was observed that in Ex.P9 - MLC Extract, at one juncture it was mentioned that no vehicle was involved and at other place, it was stated that accident was caused by the jeep bearing Reg.No.KA-05-6519. It was mainly contended that the letter 'P' was not mentioned i.e. KA-05-P-6519 was not properly mentioned. The accident had occurred on 15.03.2004, PW1 stated that the petitioner was unable to give evidence even on the next day. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon several citations, but they were not considered by the Tribunal and it was observed that, mere omission of letter 'P' which is 1 2000 ACJ 1032 SC 2 AIR 2005 SC 3110 3 2014 MAC I (KANT) 4 ILR 2012 KAR 2689 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33083 MFA No. 7748 of 2016 only a accidental omission and accordingly, held that the accident was caused by the jeep bearing No. KA-05-6519. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UPSRTC v/s Mamta and Others5 in which, it was held that the First Appellate Court is required to address all issues by giving reasons and the appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. The parties have right to be heard both on question of law and also on facts. “3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title.” 9. He further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by Lrs Appellants v/s Jagannath (dead) by Lrs. and others respondents6. "The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of 5 (2016) 4 SCC 172 6 AIR 1994 SC 853 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33083 MFA No. 7748 of 2016 the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party". 10. It is for the claimant who approached the Court to prove the accident. Initially, it was mentioned that vehicle is not known. But in the charge sheet, the number of the vehicle was mentioned, but the letter 'P' was missing. It cannot be treated as accidental omission. When the Insurance Company disputed the involvement of the vehicle and also served notice, he did not turn up and contest the matter. Therefore, this Court finds that claimant failed to prove the accident and the involvement of the vehicle. As such, he is not entitled for compensation and Insurance Company is not liable to pay the same. 11. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 01.09.2016 passed in M.V.C.No.1056/2012 by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33083 MFA No. 7748 of 2016 learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan is hereby set aside; iii. The amount deposited is to be refunded to the appellant forthwith. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE SPV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24