- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6983/2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT NAVYA T V W/O LATE CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY M, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 2. MAST SAMARTH C REDDY S/O LATE CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY M AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, 3. SRI MUNIREDDY S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 2ND MINOR APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/ MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.20, 1ST CROSS, KAVERI LAYOUT, DRL POST, NEAR FORUM MALL, BENGALURU-560029. (AS PER COURT ORDER DT 25.11.2020, 3RD APPELLANT DIED ON 27.10.2020, APPELLANTS NO.1 & 2 Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 ARE TREATED AS LRs OF DECEASED) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT PADMA N W/O MUNIREDDY, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.20, 1ST CROSS, KAVERI LAYOUT, JAYANAGAR, DRL POST, BENGALURU-560029. 2. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. REP BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H C BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.4710/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 13TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Challenging the dismissal of their petition, the claimants in MVC No.4710/2014 on the file of XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT., Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru have preferred this appeal. The appellants were claimant Nos.1 to 3 and respondents were respondent Nos.1 and 2 in MVC No.4710/2014. 2. For the purpose of convenience, henceforth the parties are referred according to their ranks before the Tribunal. 3. It was alleged that on 11.07.2014 at 3.00 a.m., when deceased Chandra Mohan Reddy M. was traveling in car bearing registration No.KA-01-MJ-0878, one Prasad Raj Gopal the driver of car drove the same in high speed, rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life. Resultantly, the car turtled and fell in the road side ditch. In the accident, Chandra Mohan Reddy M. suffered grievous injuries and died. The claimants are wife, minor son and father of deceased - Chandra Mohan Reddy M. At the time of accident, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 respondent Nos.1 and 2 were registered owner and insurer of car bearing registration No.KA–01-MJ-0878. 4. The claimants filed MVC No.4710/2014 against the respondents alleging that the accident and death of Chandra Mohan Reddy M. occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of car driver - Prasad. They further claimed that the deceased was running a bar and restaurant in his father’s name, earning `50,000/- per month and they were dependent on his income. They further contended that due to his untimely death, they have suffered damages to the tune of `75 lakhs and respondents are liable to compensate the same. 5. Respondent No.1 is none-else but the mother of the deceased and she did not contest the petition. Respondent No.2 contested the petition denying occurrence of the accident due to actionable negligence on the part of one Prasad in driving the car. Respondent No.2 contended that it was the deceased himself who was driving the car without possessing a valid and effective driving licence. They further contended that respondent No.1 - the mother of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 deceased had entrusted the car to the deceased who was not holding driving licence, therefore, it is not liable to pay any compensation. The age, income etc., were also disputed. 6. On behalf of claimants, claimant No.1 got examined herself as PW.1, one Sri.Ravikumar B.G. who was an eye- witness was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, RWs.1 and 2 examined and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. 7. The Tribunal on hearing the parties, by the impugned award held that the claimants have failed to prove that the car was being driven by Prasad as alleged, the evidence on record improbabilize the theory that Prasad was driving the car and PW.2 was inmate of the car and eye witness. The Tribunal ultimately held that the claimants have failed to prove the occurrence of the accident as alleged, accidental death of Chandra Mohan Reddy M. and dismissed the claim petition. The said award is challenged in the above appeal by the claimants. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 8. Sri Gopal Krishna N., learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that, on investigation police have filed charge sheet against Prasad and PW.2 was the complainant cum eye-witness. The charge sheet was not challenged by Prasad and respondents did not examine the said Prasad. He further submits that under such circumstances, the respondents did not rebut the aforesaid evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal was in gross error in holding that the accident as alleged was not proved and dismissed the claim petition. 9. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgment: Mangala Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others1 10. Per contra, Sri H.C.Betsur, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, respondent No.1 is none-else but the mother of the deceased and Prasad was friend of the 1 2018 5 SCC 656 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 deceased. If really Prasad was driving the car, the claimants could have examined him. It is further submitted that the charge sheet is not the conclusive proof of the occurrence of the accident as alleged and only on the claimants probabilizing their case, burden shifts to the respondent to rebut such evidence. He submits that even otherwise, the evidence of RW.1 and Ex.R1 - the MLC register extract relating to Prasad show that Prasad was traveling in the car and he was not the driver of the car, thereby the respondents got rebutted the evidence adduced by the claimants. Therefore, they ought to have examined the said Prasad. He submits that it is a case of clear collusion between claimants and respondent No.1 and charge sheet and other documents were manipulated at the behest of the claimants and respondent No.1. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 11. On hearing the submissions of both sides and on examining the materials on record, the questions that arise for consideration are; - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the claimants have failed to prove that Chandra Mohan Reddy M. suffered accidental injuries leading to his death due to actionable negligence on the part of one Prasad in driving car bearing registration No.KA–01-MJ-0878 is sustainable? ii) If so, what would be the compensation payable to the claimants? ANALYSIS Reg. Point No.(i): 12. It is not disputed that claimant No.1 is wife, claimant No.2 is son, claimant No.3 is father and respondent No.1 is mother of deceased Chandra Mohan Reddy M. It is also not disputed that on 11.07.2014 at 3.00 a.m., the car bearing registration No.KA-01-MJ-0878 met with an accident near Burujinaroppa Gate, Hiriyur – Chitradurga, NH-4 road and in the accident Chandra Mohan Reddy M, died and Prasad and Deepu suffered injuries. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 13. The burden of proving the fact that the said car was being driven by Prasad and he caused the accident and death of Chandra Mohan Reddy M, was on the claimants. It is no doubt true that in para No.22 of the judgment in Mangal Ram (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the proceedings under Section 166 of the MV Act, the claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied by the Tribunal while dealing with such cases. Reading of the next paragraph of the said judgment shows that such position prevails where filing of the complaint was not disputed. Therefore, in this case, it has to be examined whether the filing of the complaint by PW.2 and he being the inmate of the car/eye witness was established even on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. 14. Admittedly, PW.1 was not the eye witness to the incident, PW.2 claims to be the complainant and inmate of the car and an injured. But nothing like MLC register extract or wound certificate are produced to show that he had - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 suffered injuries. PW.2 in his cross examination admits that he has no records to show that he has taken treatment in any hospital though he claims that he has suffered minor injuries. He further admits that in the charge sheet his address is shown as resident of Chitradurga, then why and how he boarded the car from Bangalore should have been proved. He claims that he sat beside the driver and Prasad was the driver. But in Ex.R1 - MLC register extract produced and as spoken to by RW.1 states that Prasad gave the history of RTA while he was traveling in a car from Bengaluru to Goa. Therefore, it was incumbent on the claimants to examine the said Prasad, who was allegedly the friend of deceased himself. 15. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment in Veerappa & Another v/s Siddappa & Another2 while taking the judicial note of the rampant malpractices in filing the claim petitions to make wrongful gain by planting insured vehicles for making wrongful gains from the insurance 2 ILR 2009 KAR 3562 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 companies, in para No.16 of the said judgment held as follows: "16.Sub Section(2) of Section 149 provides the grounds on which the insurance company can avoid the liability to pay the compensation under the Act. One such ground is, if a policy is obtained by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. Section 172 confers on the Claims Tribunal a power to award compensatory costs, if it is satisfied that the policy of insurance is void on the ground that it was obtained by representation of fact which was false in any material particular or any party or insured has put forward a false or vexatious claim or defence. Sub-Section (3) of Section 172 also speaks of criminal liability in respect of such misrepresentation. However, it restricts the compensatory costs to be awarded to only Rs.1,000/- . Therefore, the Act provides for taking action against a party who sets up a false or vexatious defence. However, the cost of Rs. 1,000/- prescribed under the aforesaid provision, has failed to act as a sufficient deterrent to the parties setting up false claim or defence. The experience has shown that this branch of law is slowly getting into the hands of unscrupulous people who are making a mockery of judicial process. A disturbing trend of unholy alliance among the police, the doctors, the lawyers and some times even the Insurance Company, to siphon out the public money, and make an unlawful gain is fast emerging. It is also gaining - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 respectability and persons who indulge in such practices are acclaimed as most successful in their respective profession. This is a dangerous trend, if unchecked would undermine the judicial process. As the existing law is inadequate to check this malady, the Courts not only have to be careful in adjudicating such claims but also find ways to prevent such abuse. They have to balance the interest of these accident victims and their legal heirs on one side, by giving them just compensation at the earliest, thus giving effect to the mandate of the parliament, and on the other hand, to see that the very process is not abused and exploited by a handful of persons, who have attained specialization in this field, to make personal gains at the cost of the exchequer. An onerous responsibility lies on the Courts. Therefore, it is imperative that a strong message is to be sent to the abusers of the judicial process to discourage them from indulging in such practices as well as the consequences of such abuse may result in foisting the liability exclusively on the insured owner of the vehicle". (emphasis supplied) 16. On making such observations, it was held that the charge sheet is not the conclusive proof of occurrence of the accident in the manner alleged and the claimants have to prove their case by acceptable evidence. The aforesaid view - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 was further reiterated by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment in Mahadevi v/s. Shivaputra & anr.3 In para No.15 of the said judgment, it was held that the initial burden of proving the accident is on the claimants if the charge sheet is found to be deficient in truth, to tip the balance the claimants are required to adduce satisfactory evidence. 17. In this case, as already stated, the claimants and respondent No.1 are the close relatives of deceased Chandra Mohan Reddy M, and respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle. Claimants and Respondent No.1 did not choose to examine Prasad and Ex.R1 goes contrary to their evidence that Prasad was the driver of the car. 18. So far as the evidence of PW.2, reading of the judgment in C.C. No.569/2014 passed by the jurisdictional learned Magistrate shows that before the Criminal Court, he did not support his complaint. Reading of para No.14 of the said judgment shows that he disowned the complaint filed by him against Prasad. It was further held that he did not 3 2020 SCC Online Kar 5217 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 depose anything before the criminal Court about Prasad being the driver of the car. 19. The Tribunal on judicious appreciation of the evidence on record and by supplying sound reasons held that the claimants have failed to prove that the car in question was being driven by Prasad as alleged and accident occurred due to his actionable negligence. Whereas the defence of respondent No.2 that deceased himself was the driver of the car and accident occurred due to his own negligence is probabalized. The Tribunal was also justified in holding that the evidence of PW.2 that he was inmate of the car and eye- witness is tainted. By no stretch of imagination, the finding of the Tribunal that the claimants have failed to prove the occurrence of the accident due to actionable negligence, on the part of one Prasad in driving car bearing Registration No.KA-01-MJ-0878 can be called erroneous or perverse. There are no grounds to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal. When the occurrence of the accident as alleged itself is not proved, the question of awarding compensation to the claimants does not arise. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:6170-DB MFA No. 6983/2016 20. The appeal lacks merits. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed with costs. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS,ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42