IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MFA NO.25065 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN SHRI. UMAKANT S/O. RANAPPA BOSLE, AGE 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, (NOW NIL), R/O.NICHANAKI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SHRI. RACHAPPA S/O. VEERUPAXAPPA MARIHAL, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.SOMAWAR PETH, KITTUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, II FLOOR, MADIWALE ARCADE, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKMATH, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD 06-01-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.2678/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, BAILHONGAL, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S.166 OF MV ACT. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. MFA NO.25065/2012 2 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.03.2025 FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CAV JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 6th January 2012 passed in MVC No. 2678 of 2009, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimant that, on 27.07.2009 at about 6:00 p.m., the claimant met with an accident at Kittur-Dombarkoppa Service Road/ NH4, near Dombarkoppa I.B., Kittur Village. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/J-3010 by its rider. It is contended that due to the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. At the time of the accident, the claimant MFA NO.25065/2012 3 was about 52 years old and was earning Rs. Rs.3,00,000/- per annum by agriculture and business. He spent a considerable amount on medical and incidental expenses. Hence, he claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the motorcycle, and Respondent No. 2 is the insurer of the said vehicle. Respondent No. 2, in its written statement, denied the occurrence of the accident as alleged in the claim petition. It is further denied all the averments in the claim petition and stated that its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and holding of a valid and effective driving license by the rider of the motorcycle. Therefore, it prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, framed the necessary issues. MFA NO.25065/2012 4 6. To prove his case, the claimant examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked 95 documents as Exhibits P1 to P95. Respondent No.2 marked two documents as Exhibits R1 and R2. 7. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, held that the accident did not occur in the manner stated in the claim petition and found that the involvement of the offending motorcycle in the accident was not proved. Accordingly, it answered Issue No. 1 in the negative. Nevertheless, the Tribunal calculated the compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- and determined the rate of interest at 6% p.a.; since the claimant failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident, no compensation was awarded, and the claim petition was dismissed. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal. 8. Heard the arguments from both sides. MFA NO.25065/2012 5 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal and was properly explained. The investigating officer, after due investigation, submitted a charge sheet, thereby prima facie establishing that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. The Tribunal failed to appreciate these facts and arrived at an erroneous conclusion. Learned counsel submitted that once a charge sheet is filed by the police, the court should accept the same and hold that the accident occurred as stated therein. However, the Tribunal did not accept the same and erroneously held that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and prayed for enhancement and with these reasons prayed for allowing the appeal with costs. 10. Respondent No. 2 argued that the Tribunal properly appreciated the evidence and rightly dismissed the MFA NO.25065/2012 6 claim petition. He further contended that, though not necessary, the Tribunal has assessed the compensation. In any event, if this Court reverses the finding on Issue No. 1, the claimant is not entitled to any enhancement. Hence, it prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. The following point arise for determination is as follows:: (i) Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident did not occur due to the involvement of the said vehicle? 12. The finding of this Court on the above point is in the negative, for the following reasons: 13. The Tribunal, upon a thorough assessment of the pleadings and evidence, held that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident, and its involvement is highly doubtful. The Tribunal observed that the complaint was filed in collusion with the owner and rider of the vehicle as MFA NO.25065/2012 7 well as others connected with the filing of the charge sheet. Hence, dismissed the petition. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also submitted that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. Therefore, in any event, if this Court were to reverse the finding on issue No.1, the claimant would not be entitled to any enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal with costs. 15. Admittedly, there is a delay of four days in lodging the complaint. The accident occurred on 27.07.2009 at 6:00 p.m., and complaint was lodged on 31.07.2009. In the complaint, the complainant stated that he was attending to the claimant in the hospital, and none of the claimant’s relatives visited the hospital till 31.07.2009. Hence, he could not file complaint and only when the relatives arrived to the hospital the complainant MFA NO.25065/2012 8 proceeded to lodge the complaint. The reason for the delay has been explained in the complaint itself. Therefore, the delay is not fatal to the appellant’s case. 16. It is true that delay in lodging a complaint is by itself is not fatal, to the claimant’s case; it dependants on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, upon examining the evidence of PW1 and PW3 as well as Exhibit P2 and R1, the involvement of the vehicle in the alleged accident and by the same injuries sustained by PW1 appear to be highly doubtful. 17. Learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has discussed this issue in detail in the impugned judgment, and there is no need to repeat the those findings. It is pertinent to note that both Exhibit P2 and Exhibit R1 are dated 05.08.2009 and are Xerox copies of the original document. Both the documents were certified as a true copies by the Station House Officer of Kittur Police Station. MFA NO.25065/2012 9 The details regarding he patient’s admission, injuries sustained, and the discharge from the hospital, are identical in both documents. However, there is a key discrepancy between the two exhibits. In Exhibit R1, the history of the injuries is stated as “fall himself”, and it mentions that the patient was brought by a relative. In Exhibit P2, the history states that injury was due to a road traffic accident (RTA). This inconsistency suggests that Exhibit P2 may have been created by the claimant solely for the purpose of filing the claim petition, with the intention of suppressing the facts mentioned by PW3 in Exhibit P1. Therefore Exhibit P2 cannot be considered a true copy of the original document. 18. The said difference in the history of the injuries in the two documents clearly indicates that Exhibit P2 and Exhibit R1 are manipulated records. Exhibit P2 appears to have been created by the concerned authorities merely to support the claimant’s case for compensation. On the other MFA NO.25065/2012 10 hand, Exhibit R1 unequivocally shows that the claimant sustained injuries due to a fall, not a vehicular accident. 19. It is not the case of claimant that he fell from a motorcycle while riding it. According to his own version, he was standing by the side of the road when the rider of the offending motorcycle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. There is no mention of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident in Exhibit R1; instead it clearly states that the claimant sustained injuries due to a fall, thereby undermining the claim that the injuries resulted from vehicular accident. 20. PW3, the author of both Exhibit P2 and Exhibit R1, he has stated that he issued the wound certificate dated 05.08.2009 to Kittur Police Station. He stated that, due to oversight, he initially recorded the history of admission as “fall himself”, whereas the patient was allegedly admitted with a history of RTA. He further MFA NO.25065/2012 11 claimed that the said error was rectified later, and the corrected version was sent to the Kittur Police Station. 21. However, in His cross examination, PW3 admitted that Exhibit R1 originally recorded the injury as due to a fall. He further admitted that five days later, the police returned the wound certificate, stating that the petitioner had suffered injuries in a road traffic accident, and requested that the certificate be corrected. Accordingly, he made the correction and changed the cause of injury to RTA. He also acknowledged that Exhibit R1 did not mention the case as a medico-legal case. He denied the suggestion that he made a false correction to help the claimant. 22. From the cross examination of PW3, it becomes evident that either Exhibit P2 or Exhibit R1 was manipulated to support the claimant’s version of events at the behest of the Police. While his examination in chief, MFA NO.25065/2012 12 filed in the form of affidavit, stated that the mention of fall himself was inadvertent, his cross examination reveals that the correction was made only after the police requested it, fives days after the issuance of the original certificate. Therefore, Exhibit P2 was issued at the instance of the police and cannot be treated as a genuine document. 23. It is pertinent to state that if Exhibit P2 was truly a corrected version, there should have been visible corrections or scratch out of the word “fall himself”. However, it appears to be a newly created document. Hence, the occurrence of the accident involving the offending motorcycle and the claimant sustaining injuries in a vehicular accident is highly doubtful. 24. It is the evidence of PW1 that when he was taken to Community Health Center. Kittur, (CHC for short), he informed the attending medical personnel that the injuries were sustained in a vehicular accident. He further MFA NO.25065/2012 13 stated that upon his admission as an inpatient at Vijaya Hospital, Belagavi, he again provided the same history of injury. 25. However, PW1 has neither examined any medical officer from the CHC to support this contention nor produced a copy of MLC Register from the said hospital to corroborate his evidence. 26. It is also worth to know that neither the Medical Officer of CHC, Kittur nor the Medical Officer of Vijay Hospital, Belagavi sent any intimation to the concerned police station regarding the admission of a victim in a road traffic accident case i.e., a medico legal case. It is the duty of every hospital to inform the nearest police station whenever a patient with injuries sustained in a medico legal case is brought in for treatment. The Medical Officer on duty is obligated to report such cases to enable the police in initiate appropriate legal action. MFA NO.25065/2012 14 27. Had the Medical Officer of CHC, Kittur and Medical Officer of Vijay Hospital, Balagavi received information that the injuries were due to a vehicular accident, they would have certainly reported the matter to the concerned Police station for immediate action against the alleged wrongdoer. The absence of any such intimation clearly suggests that no information regarding a vehicle accident was provided to either medical officer. 28. These circumstances strongly indicate that the accident, as alleged, did not occur, or that PW1 did not sustain injuries in a vehicular accident. It appears that the injuries may have been sustained in some other manner, and that the claim of a vehicle accident was fabricated merely for the purpose of obtaining compensation. It also appears that with the assistance of certain officials responsible for initiating criminal proceedings, a charge MFA NO.25065/2012 15 sheet was filed against a person who was not actually involved in the alleged incident. 29. The reason for the four day delay in reporting the accident has also not been properly explained. It is important to note that PW1 is a resident of a village in Bailhangala Taluk, and claims to have sustained injuries near the Kittur Bus Stand, while standing at the side of the road. However, the spot mahaazar indicates that the accident occurred on the service road. PW1 also owns agricultural land near Kittur. Despite this, none of the alleged eyewitnesses reported the accident to the police immediately, PW2 who lodged the complaint and claims to be an eyewitness, stated that none of PW1’s relatives came to Vijaya Hospital to attend to him. As a result, he did not leave the hospital to report the incident to Police. Only on 31st July 2009 when the relative of PW1 arrived at the hospital, he had been to the police station, to lodge the complaint. MFA NO.25065/2012 16 30. The narrative provided by PW1 and PW2, appears to be a fabricated or make believe story. It is improbable that none of PW1’s immediate relatives who were residing with him in a village at Bailhongal taluka, visited the hospital even once to check on his condition. This claim is difficult to accept. 31. It appears that during the four days delay, efforts were made to implicate another vehicle in the accident in order to get the compensation from the insurance company, in collision with the owner, rider of the vehicle, police authority and Hospital Authority at CHC, Kittur as well as Vijay Hospital, Belagavi a false story was concocted and the complaint was thereafter lodged. 32. Any prudent man can infer that the sequence of events and the inconsistencies in the testimony towards a collusive effort by all involved parties to assist the claimant in falsely establishing a vehicle accident, thereby enabling MFA NO.25065/2012 17 him to claim an inflated amount of compensation and unjustly enrich himself, even though the injuries were not sustained in a motor vehicle accident. 33. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the documents placed on record, and rightly came to conclusion that accident did not occur due to involvement of the offending vehicle mentioned in the claim petition, the Tribunal answered the relevant issue in the negative and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. 34. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Geeta Dubey and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others1. In that case, it was held that a delay in furnishing the registration number of the vehicle, would not by itself affect the merits of the claim. The Court observed 1 2025 ACJ 15 MFA NO.25065/2012 18 that mere delay in filing the complaint or claim petition does not necessarily imply that the vehicle was falsely implicated. However, such observations are to be applied based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. 35. The main contention of the claimant that once the police file a charge sheet, the Tribunal cannot go beyond the contents of the charge sheet and question whether the accident occurred or whether the alleged vehicle was involved. This contention is untenable. The recording of the evidence. Production of documents and hearing both sides and assigning reasons to answer each issues, even in a summary trial before the Tribunal, is not a formality. If a charge sheet is to be accepted without proof, then the entire process of evidence recording and adjudication would become redundant. They are to be accepted to believe as prima facie case. If doubt arises as in the present case. The Tribunal has to investigate truth in MFA NO.25065/2012 19 the said case to decide whether such accident occurred due to involvement of vehicle. 36. In cases where doubts arise regarding the genuineness of the charge sheet, it is a duty of claimant to prove that the accident occurred with the involvement of the offending vehicle and that he sustained injuries as a result. The burden of proof on issue No.1 always lie with the claimant. The fundamental principle of proving a fact remains with the person who asserts a fact. Therefore, the said contention is not acceptable 37. In the light of the above discussion, the point is answered in the negative. Since the claimant has failed to prove that the accident occurred as alleged, the question of determining compensation does not arise. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed; MFA NO.25065/2012 20 (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 6th January 2012 passed in MVC No. 2678 of 2009, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal stands confirmed; (iii) Send back TCR with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE Vnp / CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46