- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1106 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED YATHIRAJ MUTT BUILDING 199, IST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE NOW REP BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE-560025 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI CHALAPATHI S/O RAMANA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS R/A N N T TEMPLE BACKSIDE CHINTAMANI BEINT MINOR REP BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI RAMANA S/O PEDDA VENKATARAYAPPA R/A N N T TEMPLE BACKSIDE CHINTAMANI Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 2. SRI SHAM CHANDRAN S/O A R CHANDRAN ASHIRVAD NEAR PRASAD TILES OPP M S R HOSPITAL R M V 2ND STAGE BANGALORE …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NARASIMHA RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.11.2017, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, MACT, CHINTHAMANI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,62,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPSOIT IN TRIBUNAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurer against the judgment and award dated 31st October 2013, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, MACT, Chinthamani, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.07/2006. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 02.08.2005, at about 01.00 p.m., the minor claimant by name Chalapathi was returning home from school by walk on the right side of the road. At that time, he met with an accident near Maruthi Motors at MG road, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-04- EB-3146, by its driver. He took treatment at Government Hospital, Chintamani, and Minto Hospital, Bangalore. More than Rs.50,000/- was spent towards medical expenses. The boy was aged about 8 years at the time of the accident and he was studying in the primary school. The said boy has lost vision in his left eye. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the contents of the claim petition and denied its liability to pay the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 12 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-12. Respondents examined one witness as RW-1 and marked documents as Exs.R-1 to R- 16. 7. Initially, MVC No.7/2006 was heard and awarded compensation of Rs.2,62,500/- by the Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 11.01.2011. The insurer had challenged the said award before this Court in MFA No.3714/2011. This Court, after hearing both the parties by order dated 19.06.2013, set aside the award and remanded the matter with the following direction: "to record a specific finding regarding involvement of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04-EB-3146 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 (insured vehicle), in the accident in question, in the light of evidence already adduced and further evidence that may be adduced by parties, for which liberty reserved to the parties". After remand of the matter, the claimants examined PW-3 and PW-4 and marked some documents. Similarly, further evidence of RW-1 was recorded and respondents marked Exs.P-8 to P16. 8. The Tribunal after rehearing the matter, answered the said point raised by this Court and held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04-EB-3146 by its rider and awarded compensation by the impugned Judgment. 9. In the Judgment and award passed in MFA No.3714/2011 dated 19.06.2013, this Court up held the amount of compensation awarded and remanded the matter only to give finding as to whether the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 10. According to the claimant, the accident occurred on 02.08.2005, in front of the Maruthi Showroom at Chintamani and it was witnessed by PW-4. According to PW-4's evidence, he took the said boy to the hospital for treatment. Thereafter, PW-1 lodged the complaint at Chintamani Town Police Station on 17.08.2005. As per Ex.P-8, it is mentioned that PW-1 was taking care of his son and moving from Chintamani to Bangalore to provide treatment to his son. Therefore, he was unable to lodge the complaint immediately. On that basis, Crime No.108/2005 was registered in Ex.P-1. 11. PW-4, in his evidence, did not state that he lodged any complaint with the police, nor did he mention that he provided the history of the incident at the Government Hospital in Chintamani or that he signed any hospital registers. According to his examination-in-chief, when he arrived at the hospital, the victim’s relatives, approximately five in number were already present. He left the victim at the hospital and claimed ignorance as to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 whether the victim’s father was present. During his further cross-examination, he stated that he did not know the name of the rider of the motorcycle and had not mentioned it either in his examination-in-chief or in his statement to the police. Contrary to this, in his examination-in-chief, he did state that the rider's name was Ramesh, S/o Krishnappa. In his previous statement Ex.P-12 also he has stated name of the rider of the motor cycle as Ramesh, S/o Krishnappa. He further stated in his cross-examination that he saw the vehicle number on the date of the incident but did not record it anywhere. He stated the registration number of the vehicle out of his memory. He also stated that, on the same day, the police came to his showroom and took away the offending motorcycle. But later stated that he was unaware as to whether the said vehicle was parked in front of his showroom. 12. The claimant has examined PW-3, who is a sub- inspector of police and he was working as a PSI in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 Chintamani Police Station at the time of the incident. According to him, he directed one of his subordinates on 08.08.2005 to seize and bring the motorcycle. Accordingly, the said police official seized the vehicle and brought it to the police station. He seized the vehicle under mahazar Ex.P-10. However, Ex.P-10 does not disclose as to who was in the custody of the vehicle, when it was seized or the location from where the police constable took the vehicle into his custody. The said mahazar also does not bear the signature of the owner or custodian of the vehicle. 13. PW-3 in his cross-examination has stated that during the investigation, he came to know that the victim was treated in the Chintamani Government Hospital immediately after the incident and from there he was taken to Minto Hospital for higher treatment. He also stated that one Santhosh took the said victim to the hospital and he further stated that he did not check the MLC register at the Government Hospital. He denied the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 suggestion that the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-04-E-4284. He denied the suggestion that the vehicle with registration No. KA-04- EB-3164 was falsely implicated in the case. 14. PW-1, the complainant, in his evidence, narrated the facts of the case and stated that after learning about the incident, he took his son, Chalapathi, to Minto Hospital for further treatment. He denied the suggestion that he had given a statement to the medical officer at the Government Hospital in Chintamani, stating that the incident occurred due to the involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-04-E-4284. He also denied lodging the complaint on the date of the accident. He stated that he had not signed any documents at the Government Hospital in Chintamani. He visited the Chintamani Government Hospital between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. and then took his son to Minto Hospital for higher treatment. He denied the suggestion that he informed about the incident to the concerned doctor. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 15. RW-1 is a Senior Assistant working in the office of respondent No. 2. In his evidence, he stated that based on the MLC (Exs. R-3 and R-7), he suspected that the accident occurred due to the involvement of the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-04-E-4284. Ex. R-3 is a true copy of the record from the Government Hospital, Chintamani, which mentions that the alleged RTA occurred on Sidlaghatta Road involving KA-04-E-4284, a Hero Honda CD 100. The record also shows the left thumb impression (LTM) of the victim, the signature of PW-1, and the signature of Santhosh, who took the patient to the hospital. 16. Ex. R-7 is also a record from the same hospital, the MLC register, which shows that the victim was brought to the hospital by one Santhosh, and the father of the victim signed the form. The doctor also took the LTM of the victim, a minor boy. The record indicates that the accident occurred due to the involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-04-E-4284, at around 1:00 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 p.m., and that the victim was hit by a bike. The history of the injuries sustained by the claimant is also mentioned in this record. 17. Respondent No.1 wrote a letter to respondent No.2, as per Ex.R-8 stating that he sold the said vehicle on 05.08.2005 and that his vehicle was not involved in any accident. It indicates that as on the date of accident i.e., 02.08.2005, he was the owner of the vehicle. 18. Comparing the signatures of the complainant in his affidavit, the claim petition with those in Exs. R-3 and R-7, it is evident that the signatures are similar. It destroys the claimant's claim that he did not sign on the document Exs.R-3 and R-7. Of course, he was not an eyewitness to the incident and it is nobody's case that he was present at the time of incident. 19. Exs. R-3 and R-7 do not state that Madhu had brought the victim to the hospital. On the contrary it showed that Santhosh brought the victim to the hospital. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 PW-4 says that Santhosh was not present at the time of the accident but he stated that Santhosh repaired the vehicle on that day. There must be some reason to the doctor, to have mentioned incorrect information in the MLC Register. No such reasons assigned. Under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is a presumption on the entry made in the MLC Register since such entries was made in the usual course of business. Moreover, according to evidence of PW-4 relatives of the victims were present when he took the victim to the hospital. How they knew about the incident is another question that was not answered. 20. According to Ex. P-8, the delay in filing the complaint was due to the fact that complainant alone was looking after his son and hence, it was not possible for him to immediately lodge the complaint. If the victim’s relatives were already at the hospital before he was taken to hospital, they could have filed the complaint. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 21. PW-3 has not stated that any intimation was received from the Government Hospital, Chintamani. Normally, when a patient is admitted to a hospital with a history of injuries sustained in an accident, it is the duty of the medical officer to report it immediately to the nearest police station. If the concerned doctor has noted the history in the MLC, in all probabilities he must have sent an intimation to the concerned police station. There is no explanation for not registering the complaint by concerned police. Therefore, the reasons assigned by PW-1 for lodging the complaint after a 15-day delay, despite the victim’s relatives being present at the hospital, is doubtful. 22. As noted earlier, the offending vehicle was taken from the spot of accident on the same day evening as per PW-4, but the investigating police constable said to be seized it after lodging the complaint. That is why the said police did not mention from whose custody the vehicle was taken. Evidence of PWs-3 and 4 in this regard is not consistent. PW-4, was a manager of a Maruti - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 showroom, in front of which accident occurred. It appears he knew the victim personally. He did not explain as to why he did not file complaint immediately. All these facts raise serious doubts about the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident. 23. It is not the case of PW-1 that due to shock he mistakenly gave a different number, although such mistake is quite possible. Only two individuals appear to have met the doctor, whose name is recorded in both the MLC register and the medical records. It is likely that these two persons provided the vehicle number to the doctor, and this seems to have been done as a precaution. Since it was an MLC, the doctor obtained the signatures of both, who brought the victim to the hospital. These facts lead to an inference that the said vehicle was indeed involved in the accident. PW-1 is not an eye witness, who told him registration of another vehicle is not disclosed. Complaint was filed after 15 days from the date of accident, known persons and relatives of PW-1 were aware - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 of the accident. These facts support contention of insurer that due to some technical reasons claimant would not have succeed to get compensation from the owner of said vehicle and hence, in collusion with concerned, another vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident. Such possibilities cannot be ruled out. 24. The Tribunal has not considered these facts in detail. Most of the reasons assigned by the Tribunal is pertaining to the charge sheet and its enclosures. Therefore, only on the basis of charge sheet filed against the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04- EB-3146, it cannot be held that the said vehicle was involved in the accident. 25. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 (claimant) is that respondent No.2 has not examined the doctor who noted Exs.R-3 and R-7, who was a relevant witness to prove their contention. Respondent No. 2 has produced a document that is a copy - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 of a public record. To prove such a document, it may not be necessary to examine the person concerned, particularly to clarify whether the entries made by the doctor are erroneous or incorrect. The claimant could have examined the doctor when the accuracy of the entries was seriously contested by the insurer—either during the proceedings before the Tribunal after the judgment dated 13.07.2007, or even after the disposal of MFA No. 3714/2011 by this Court. 26. The minor boy lost vision in one of his eyes at the age of 8 years. The Court has every sympathy towards the said boy, such sympathy cannot be a ground to pass orders ignoring the materials available on record. 27. It is true that the strict Rule of law is not applicable to M.A.C.T., but that does not mean that the Tribunal can pass orders arbitrarily. The standard of proof required in a civil suit and in a criminal case differs from the standard of proof required in proceedings before the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 Tribunal. In normal circumstances, the Tribunal accepts the case of the victim of an accident on the basis of the charge sheet placed before it. However, when such a presumption or prima facie case is rebutted by the insurer, then burden lies on claimant to prove his contention. If that is the rule then there was no need to remand the matter to the Tribunal to give proper finding on this issue, in earlier appeal. 28. Learned counsel for the claimant has relied on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in FAO-753-2007 (O&M), dated 08.05.2025. In that case also, the vehicle number was wrongly mentioned in the FIR and thereafter, it was corrected during the course of investigation and the proper vehicle number was inserted, that was challenged by the insurer. Looking at the facts and circumstances of that case and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others1, the Bench 1 2011 (11) SCC 635 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the said mistake could be rectified during the investigation. Looking at the facts and circumstances of that case, it was found justifiable that immediately after the accident, within two hours, a complaint was lodged by someone and the vehicle number was wrongly mentioned in the FIR. Later on it was found that the said number was incorrect and was rectified during the investigation. In the present case, the vehicle number was wrongly given to the doctor and not to the police. No complaint was registered immediately after the incident, although the accident occurred in the afternoon at around 1:00 p.m. and there were eyewitnesses, as well as the relatives were aware about the accident. The claimant’s father, despite having signed the medical records, later denied it and lodged a complaint after a delay of 15 days, providing certain explanations as discussed in the above paragraphs. The said explanation is not reliable. Under these circumstances, on the basis of findings in the judgment of the case Punjab and - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 Haryana (supra), this court cannot ignore the above stated facts. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occured due to rash and negligent riding of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-04-EB 3146. It needs interference of this court. If the said vehicle was not involved in the accident then question of payment of compensation by the respondents do not arise. Hence, claim petition needs dismissal. 29. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 31st October 2013, passed in MVC.No.07/2006, by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, MACT, Chinthamani, is set aside. iii) The claim petition is dismissed. iv) Whatever amount deposited by the insurer shall be refunded to the insurer. v) Draw award accordingly. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26442 MFA No. 1106 of 2014 Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK