- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7671 MFA No. 22127 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22127 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BAGALKOT, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1563, SEETA SMRUTHI, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOUDAPPA HUCHCHAPPA BARADI, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BAGALKOT, NOW RESIDING AT SHIRAGUPPI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. GANESH NINGAYYA HIRENNAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ARAKERI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. RAMANNA HANAMANTH ADAVI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND RIDER OF MOTOR CYCLE, R/O: SORAGAVI, TQ: MUDHOL. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. BASAVARAJ S. BYAKOD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 07-01- 2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.43/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-VII, BILAGI. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7671 MFA No. 22127 of 2012 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 07.01.2012, passed in MVC No.43/2010, on the file of Member, MACT-VII, Bilagi (for short, ‘Tribunal’), on the ground that the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-29/R-5436 was not involved in the accident. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 27.06.2009, the claimant/respondent No.1 had been to Shiraguppi to recover the due amount from the customers. When the claimant was proceeding towards farm house of Guralingayya and crossing the road of Kataraki to Kundaragi, at that time, the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-29/R-5436 ridden by its rider came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant. Thus, the claimant has sustained fracture injuries. The Tribunal upon the claim petition filed, has awarded compensation and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7671 MFA No. 22127 of 2012 fastened liability on the insurance company to pay compensation. 3. It is the ground urged by the appellant/insurance company and also the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company is that the motorcycle was not involved in the accident and it was falsely implicated just to make claim of compensation. There is delay of 8 days in lodging complaint before the police. Therefore, the motorcycle is falsely implicated into the case. Therefore, prays to set aside the judgment and award by allowing the appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants justified the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 5. The accident is caused on 27.06.2009 and admittedly, complaint is lodged after eight days i.e., on 04.07.2009. Therefore, there is delay of eight days in lodging complaint and registering FIR. Just because the delay in lodging complaint, is not the ground to say that the entire - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7671 MFA No. 22127 of 2012 accident is false. As per judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi V/s Badrinarayana and Ors., (2011) 14 Supreme Court Cases 693, the delay in lodging complaint could be considered on the facts and circumstances in each case. It is stated that the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and therefore, he was admitted to the Hospital immediately. The paramount thing is to get medical treatment to the injured rather to lodge complaint before the police. Ex.P1 is the complaint and FIR, Ex.P4-is the spot panchanama and Ex.P5-is the chargesheet. 6. Upon the statutory investigation, the police have laid chargesheet against the rider of the motorcycle. The statutory investigation has its own significance to find out the accused in the background of offence alleged. It is not the case of the appellant/insurance company that, a false chargesheet is laid for any ulterior gain. Therefore, just because there is delay, that cannot be a ground to reject the claim petition. But all other evidence with police records i.e., FIR, complaint, spot panchanama, chargesheet and medical records, proved the fact that the claimant suffered injuries in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7671 MFA No. 22127 of 2012 the road accident as discussed above. The medical records i.e., wound certificate and disability certificate prove the fact that the claimant was admitted to the Hospital with the history of accident. Therefore, when the claimant is able to prove that he has sustained injuries in the accident and involvement of the motorcycle as stated in the accident on all its preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the appreciation of evidence from the Tribunal is justified and legal one which needs no interference by this Court. 7. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the concerned tribunal for disbursement. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RKM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 56