- 1 - MFA No. 24570/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24570/2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI. PRITHVIRAJ LAXMAN JAGANATH, AGE 20 YEARS, OCC: MASONRY WORK, (NOW NIL), R/O. BENDAWAD VILLAGE, TALUKA: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM, NOW R/AT SHIVAJI GALLI, AMBEWADI, TAL & DIST: BELGAUM. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SHRI. MANJUNATH BASAPPA SHATTENNAVAR, AGE 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BENDAWAD VILLAGE, TAL: RAIBAG, DISTRICT: BELGAUM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUNILI COMPLEX NEAR COURT CIRCLE, LAXMI TEMPLE ROAD, GOKAK, TAL: GOKAK, R/BY. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BRANCH OFFICE AT RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31-08-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.933/2012 ON THE FILE OF IV-ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT-V, BELGAUM, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 01.04.2025 FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - MFA No. 24570/2013 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This is claimant’s appeal against the judgment and award dated 31.08.2013 passed in MVC No.933 of 2012 by the learned IV Additional District Judge and MACT-V Court, Belagavi(for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. It is the case of the claimant that on 12.10.2010 around 12:30 noon petitioner and his relative Srinivasa were standing in front of Bellad High School at Kabbur, waiting for the to bus to return to the village Bendwad on Kabbur-Mahalingpur road. At that time rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA23/W-174 rode his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. As a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He had taken treatment as inpatient and spent more than Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses. It is further contended that claimant was aged 19 years at the time of accident. He was doing - 3 - MFA No. 24570/2013 Mason work and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. He was contributing the same to the maintenance of the family. Due to the injury sustained in the accident he is suffering from permanent disability, which is affecting his earning capacity. With these reasons prayed to award compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is owner and respondent No.2 is insurer of the offending motorcycle. Respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. It is further stated that there was delay of 7 days in filing the complaint. Claimant colluding with the owner of the vehicle and police falsely implicated the vehicle in the accident. Its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving licence by the rider of the motorcycle. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2. 5. The Tribunal framed necessary issues. - 4 - MFA No. 24570/2013 6. The claimant to prove his case examined three witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and marked 16 documents as per Exs.P1 to P16. Respondents examined two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and through RW1 marked 5 documents as per Exs.R1 to 5 and through RW2 marked 2 documents as per Exs.R1 and R2. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the pleading and materials available on record, held that accident was not occurred due to involvement of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 23/W-174. Claimant sustained injuries in some other incident, therefore claimant is not entitled for compensation from respondent Nos.1 and 2. With the said findings the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. 8. Heard the arguments of learned advocate for the claimant as well as the insurer. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has vehemently argued in line with the grounds taken in the appeal memo. He has submitted that the evidence placed - 5 - MFA No. 24570/2013 on record sufficiently prove that it is the case of the claimant that rider of the motorcycle pleaded guilty before the Court and paid the fine. The owner of the vehicle has not challenged the said charge sheet. Even the insurer has not challenged the charge sheet before the competent Court. Therefore they cannot make any grievance about the charge sheet. Mere delay in filing the complaint is not sufficient to suspect the case of the claimant. The claimant has taken treatment into different hospitals. The endorsement made by the Umrani Hospital in Exs.P6 and Ex.P10 are not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence. Delay in filing of the complaint is properly explained. With these reasons prayed to allow the appeal and assess the compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record. 10. The learned counsel for the insurer vehemently contended that the Tribunal meticulously appreciated the evidence available on record and rightly rejected the clamp petition. There are no grounds to interfere with the said findings. - 6 - MFA No. 24570/2013 11. According to evidence of PWs.1 and 2 immediately after the accident they went to the hospital for treatment. No records are produced from the Doctor Patil’s Hospital to show that claimant was taken to the said hospital and he was treated there. Medical records of Umrani Hospital reveal that claimant sustained injury by “fall from bike”. Even mother of claimant has given statement before the Doctor as per Ex.R4. There are no reasons for the mother of the claimant to give fale statement to doctor. It is not the case of the claimant that his mother was not cordial with him and out of the enmity she gave such statement. It is also pertinent to note that such a statement was not given before the police on the contrary before the Medical Officer of Ganga Surgical and fracture Clinic. The same facts are reflected in Exs.P6 and P10 as well as Ex.R3. The claimant was conscious when he was admitted in the hospital. He was taken to the hospital by eyewitness-PW3 and even he could have given the statement before the Doctor. Thereafter within a period of 6 to 7 days, they contacted respondent No.1 and had a - 7 - MFA No. 24570/2013 discussion with him and police and thereafter with the consent respondent No.1, falsely implicated the said vehicle just to claim compensation from the insurer. This fact is observed in detail by the Tribunal. There are no reasons to interfere in the said finding. Therefore prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. The following questions arise for determination: i. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that it is a false accident case? ii. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so what amount? 13. Question Nos.1 and 2 are interconnected and therefore they are discussed together. Question Nos.1 and 2: 14. The facts of the case are stated in the above paragraphs and there is no need to repeat it. Moreover the learned Presiding Officer of MACT had taken much pains and elaborately discussed the pleadings, evidence and - 8 - MFA No. 24570/2013 documents. Therefore there is no need to reproduce the same. 15. According to the case of the claimant, there is delay of 7 days in filing the complaint. Complainant is a distant relative of the claimant. It is not the case of the claimant that his parents and other nearest relatives were residing elsewhere and he had been in custody of PW3 i.e., the complainant. When PW1 sustained fracture and was admitted as inpatient in the hospital, it is difficult to believe that his parent or nearest relative would not have visited the hospital to know his status or ascertain the reason for causing of the said injuries. Even PW3 could have telephoned to the nearest Police Station and informed about the manner in which accident took place and the vehicle involved in the said accident. Therefore reason for the delay stated in Ex.P1 in lodging the complaint of nearly 7 to 8 days is not properly explained. And it is not reliable. 16. Ex.P6 is the Medical Legal Certificate given by the very same Hospital which discloses that he was - 9 - MFA No. 24570/2013 brought to the Hospital on 12.10.2010 at 12.00 noon. He was discharged from the hospital on 25.10.2010. In Ex.P6 at the column of history of the injury, it is stated that “fall from the motorbike”. Complaints of pain in the left wrist and left hip. On examination swelling, tenderness, deformity over left hip and left wrist, general condition fair and conscious.” Unless such information was given to the Doctor, it is difficult to believe that without any material Doctor would write the said facts in the medical records. There is no explanation for making such notes in the medical records of the claimant therefore contents of Ex.P6 regarding injury sustained by claimant is believable. It appears that the said medical intimation was sent to the Police Station on 12.10.2010. Police received the said intimation. It appears that they have not acted upon on the said medical intimation. Claimant has given statement to the police as per Ex.P7 on 20.10.2010, wherein it is stated that the accident occurred by the motorcycle, who came from his hind side and dashed against him when he - 10 - MFA No. 24570/2013 and PW2 were waiting for the bus. Therefore the said statement do not inspire confidence. 17. The discharge summary was given as per Ex.P10 by Ganga Surgical and Fracture Clinic dated 25.10.2010. In the said certificate also it is noted that injury sustained by claimant was by “fall from motorcycle”. 18. PW3 is the so called eyewitness to the incident. Considering his answers in the cross-examination, he appears to be planted witness. His evidence is contrary to the documents. Hence his evidence is not reliable. 19. Respondents examined the Medical Officer of Ganga Surgical and Fracture Clinic as RW1. In the examination-in-chief he has stated that he was informed that victim sustained injury by “fall from motorcycle” and in MLC register the same facts were noted as told by the claimant. They have sent intimation to the police on 13.10.2010. Mother of the claimant had given a statement which is noted in the MLC register as per Ex.R4. Ex.R1 shows that injury sustained by the claimant was by fall - 11 - MFA No. 24570/2013 from the motorcycle. It does not say about the manner in which accident taken place as stated in by the claimant. Ex.R2 reveals similar facts. Ex.R3 is discharge card, copy of which is already placed on record by the claimant. Ex.R4 reads as under: “that Prithviraj Laxman Jaganath along with rider of the motorcycle were going towards Kabbur. Someone was riding the said motorcycle. About 3 kms away from Kabbur, when the claimant was going on the motorcycle on a road which consist of ditches, he fell down by loosing balance over the vehicle and sustained injuries.” 20. Claimant has not examined the mother to disprove the said statement or to explain under what circumstances she gave such statement. Considering all these facts it is rightly held by the Tribunal that reasons for the accident stated in the pleading and evidence is highly doubtful. 21. It is true that while deciding compensation petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act there is no need to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubt. But the claimant has to prove prima facie that accident had taken - 12 - MFA No. 24570/2013 place due to involvement of the said vehicle and was caused due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. Claimant is victim of the accident and he witnessed the accident. According to his case made out in the pleadings PW3 witnessed the accident and took claimant to the hospital for treatment. On the date of incident no information was given to the police and in spite of the information received from the Hospital, police did not register FIR by recording the statement of PW3, who was said to be present in the Hospital. Admittedly claimant was conscious while admittedly in the hospital. Ex.R4 indicates that even his mother came to the Hospital and given statement that her son fell down from a motorcycle while going as pillion rider and sustained injuries. There is no explanation as to why she gave false statement before the Doctor as per Ex.R4. The contention of the insurer that colluding with owner, rider and police, the claimant has created the story and built up the record, cannot be ruled out. The claimant is not able to prove that he sustained injuries in a vehicle accident by involvement of the - 13 - MFA No. 24570/2013 offending vehicle and hence he is not entitled to claim compensation, from respondents. 22. The Tribunal has already stated in detail on the basis of the materials available on record and held that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in the case to claim compensation and dismissed the claim petition. Even after re-considering the entire materials available on record this Court is of the same view as expressed by the Tribunal. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656 in the case of Mangla Ram Vs.Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others. The fact of the present case and that case are totally different. In that case though there was delay in filing the complaint it was properly explained But in the present case, claimant was unable to explain the same. Materials available prima facie show that it is falsely implicated. Therefore the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the present case. - 14 - MFA No. 24570/2013 24. In view of the aforesaid reasons question Nos.1 & 2 are answered in the negative. For the reasons discussed above, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed with cost. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 31.08.2013 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge and MACT-V Court, Belagavi in MVC No.933 of 2012 is confirmed. iii. Send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3