- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26441 MFA No. 7010 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. 7010 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE, KASTURI MANSION, ABOVE CANARA BANK, BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES, M G ROAD, TUMKUR TOWN, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.R. VENKATESH S/O RAMANJINAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, C/O SIDDARAJU, HESARAHALLI VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK-572216 2. MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26441 MFA No. 7010 of 2014 NOW AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O CHANNASANDRA, KYALANUR POST, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101 …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 03/09/19, PAPER PUBLICATION ACCEPTED IN RESPECT OF R1 AND R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.715/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT-17, AT GUBBI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.55,755/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. 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 judgment and award dated 4th June 2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-17, Gubbi, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.715/2011. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26441 MFA No. 7010 of 2014 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 09.07.2010, at about 05.00 p.m., the claimant and his brother-Obalesh were standing on the left side of NH-206 at Singonahalli. At that time, the rider of the Hero Honda bearing registration No.KA-07-Q-7935, rode his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained fracture and other injuries. Initially, he was shifted to Government District General Hospital, Tumkur and as per medical advice, he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bengaluru. He took treatment as an inpatient and spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. He has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle. Both appeared before the Tribunal, but only respondent No.2 has filed written statement denying the contents of the claim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26441 MFA No. 7010 of 2014 petition and denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination. 6. The claimant to prove his case examined one witness as PW-1 and marked 56 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-56. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked documents as Exs.R-1 and R-2. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties by the impugned judgment awarded compensation of Rs.55,755/-. The same is challenged in the present appeal. 8. I have heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record. 9. The main contention of the appellant is that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in this case. According to the history provided to the medical officer at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26441 MFA No. 7010 of 2014 the Government Hospital, the claimant, while riding the vehicle with a pillion rider, Obalesh, fell due to the skid of the vehicle and sustained injuries. However, the complaint was lodged five days after the incident. During this delay, it is alleged that the claimant colluded with the owner of the offending vehicle and the police to falsely implicate the vehicle and have a criminal case registered against its rider. The said contention was not considered by the Tribunal. Hence, it erroneously awarded compensation and directed the insurer to pay the same. Therefore, prayed to set aside the said award. 10. The claimant has produced the wound certificate as Exs. P-4, P-56, and R-1, which indicate that he sustained injuries due to the skid and fall while riding a motorcycle along with his brother. However, this fact was suppressed by the claimant, might be with an intention to have wrongful gains. Given the delay of five days in filing the complaint, it cannot be ruled out that the claimant colluded with the owner and rider of the motorcycle to file - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26441 MFA No. 7010 of 2014 a false FIR and submit a fabricated complaint to the police. The investigating officer did not take into account the contents of Ex. P-56 or the MLC register before proceeding with the matter. The case presented before the Tribunal, as stated in the claim petition and supported by the documents produced by the claimant, including the earliest medical records following the injury, clearly suggests that, in order to claim compensation from the respondents and in collusion with Respondent No. 1, the facts were altered, and a false complaint was subsequently filed. 11. The Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation. Unfortunately, filing false claim petitions and getting compensation by colluding with the concerned authorities and owner of the vehicle has become common. Filing such false claims and collecting money from the insurance companies has becoming fashion of the of the day. This should be curbed and nipped in the bud before it - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26441 MFA No. 7010 of 2014 spreads further. Therefore, it is not a bona fide petition filed to claim the compensation. 12. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 4th June 2014, passed in MVC.No.715/2011, by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-17, Gubbi, is set aside. iii) The claim petition is dismissed. iv) Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant shall be refunded. v) Draw award accordingly. 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.: 9 CT: BHK