- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23877 MFA No. 3235 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3235/2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. MELAGIRI PLAZA, DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD, V.V.ROAD, MCC 'B' BLOCK, DAVANAGERE. REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SHUBBARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SRISHAILA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THIPPESWAMY S/O KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT BANGARANKKANA GUDDA, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528. 2. T.MARANNA S/O THIPPAIAH, MAJOR, R/O KHILAKANAKUPPE VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528. 3. G.NAGARAJA S/O GADREPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23877 MFA No. 3235 of 2014 3(a) 3(b) SHILPA MAJOR, THAMALEHALLI VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE. DEEPA MINOR, D/O NAGARAJA, REP. BY HER MOTHER SMT. SHILPA, R/A THAMALEHALLI VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & R3 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1138/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & VI ADDITIONAL MACT, DAVANAGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.98.316/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL IS 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-respondent No.3, against the judgment and award dated 12.12.2013 passed in MVC No.1138/2009 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & VI Additional MACT, Davanagere. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23877 MFA No. 3235 of 2014 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.08.2009 at about 4:00 P.M., the claimant was going by walk near Jagluru Bus stand, at that time, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearing No.KA-17-EA- 901 by its rider. As a result, he sustained fracture of shaft of left tibia and fibula. Initially he took treatment in the Government Hospital, Jagaluru and from there, he was shifted to SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere, wherein he took treatment as an in-patient for 25 days. He spent substantial amount towards medical expenses and he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.15,90,000/-. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 are rider and owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.3 is insurer of the said vehicle. Respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 filed written statement, denying the contents of the claim petition and denied involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. It also denied its liability to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23877 MFA No. 3235 of 2014 pay compensation. With these reasons, it prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Basing on the rival contentions, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The Tribunal recorded the evidence; the claimant examined PWs.1 to 3 got marked Exhibits P1 to P83. Respondent No.3 examined two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and marked Exhibits R1 and R2. 6. The Tribunal after hearing both the sides held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider and awarded total compensation of Rs.98,316/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. 7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 took time on 12.06.2025 and the matter was adjourned to 26.06.2025. On that date, learned counsel for respondent No.1, took a pass over and thereafter, did not appear. The matter was taken up on 01.07.2025 and 02.07.2025. On both the days there was no representation for respondent No.1. Hence adjourned to today. It was specifically order on 02.07.2025 that if respondent No.1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23877 MFA No. 3235 of 2014 does not appear and argue the appeal, suitable orders will be passed. It seems, due to said reason advocate for respondent No.1 appeared today and prays time on the ground that he does not have any records of this appeal including appeal memo. The appeal is of the year 2014. Reasons assigned for the adjournment is not justifiable. Hence, rejected and proceed to pass orders. 9. The contentions of the learned advocate for the appellant are that, medical records reveals that he fell from the bike on 12.08.2009 and sustained injury. Even date of incident are not consistent. In the medical records date of accident was mentioned as 12.08.2009 and 11.09.2009. Contents of medical records belies the case of claimants. These facts were not considered by the Tribunal and erroneously awarded the compensation. Hence, prayed to set aside the judgment and award. 10. The following questions arise for consideration: "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim petition and directing respondent No.3-Insurer to pay the compensation? (ii) What order?" - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23877 MFA No. 3235 of 2014 11. I answer the above points in the negative for the following: REASONS 12. Claimant in the pleading and the evidence has stated that while going by walk a motorcycle hit him and caused injury. PW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that he gave history of his injury to the medical officer, Government hospital, Jagaluru. He also admits that history of injury stated in the Ex.P6 is correct. He also admits that contents of Ex.P82 are correct and history of injury was correctly stated in the said document. He admits that he does not have driving licence. He denied the suggestion that he fell down from two wheeler while riding the same and falsely implicated offending motorcycle to claim compensation since he had no driving licence. 13. PW-2 was examined to prove accident and to over come the contents of Exs.P6 and P82. He pleads ignorance about statement given by PW-1 to the doctor. PW-3 is CMO of SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere, has stated that the history of injuries was mentioned, as informed by the PW-1. His evidence proves the contention of respondent No.3 that history of injury was mentioned in the Ex.P82 as stated by PW-1. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23877 MFA No. 3235 of 2014 14. Respondent No.1 examined Medical Officer of Jagaluru, Government Hospital. He has stated that as stated by the PW-1 history of injury was mentioned in Ex.R1 and Ex.P6. In his cross examination he denied the suggestions of claimant that it was mistakenly written. RW-2 is Officer of Respondent No.3 he corroborated contentions of respondent No.3. Above said facts leads to on inference that claimant changed the manner in which accident occurred, may be to suit his purpose. Though he tried to create a story of accident by involving insured vehicle, but stated facts before the Medical Officer at Jagaluru, Government Hospital and SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere. A serious doubt arises about involvement of alleged motorcycle belonging to respondent No.2. 15. In the medical records also i.e., Ex.P82, the date of accident is stated as 11.09.2009, which is nearly one month after the alleged date of accident as stated in the claim petition. Exs.P6 and P82 reflect different accident dates, which is also not clarified. These facts force to believe that the claimant has not approached the Court with clean hands. 16. Motor Vehicle compensations cases are summary trial proceedings. Looking into the fate of the victims of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23877 MFA No. 3235 of 2014 accident or legal representatives of the deceased victims who died in the accident, the Tribunal considers such cases sympathetically and award a just and reasonable amount of compensation even on marginal guesswork. However, when a person tries to abuse the process of law and Court, then such cases cannot be considered sympathetically. Claimant has however failed to prove that he met with an accident involving the insured vehicle and sustained injuries. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the claimant has miserably failed to establish that he sustained injuries in an accident involving offending vehicle. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the materials available on record and has not considered the contentions raised by the Insurer. Hence, erred in coming to conclusion the accident occurred due to the involvement of offending vehicle. Therefore on re-appreciating the material one has to conclude that the said finding is erroneous and perverse. Hence requires interference. Accordingly I answer above points in favour of Insurer and I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23877 MFA No. 3235 of 2014 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 12.12.2013 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & VI Additional MACT, Davanagere, in MVC No.1138/2009 is set-aside and the claim petition is dismissed. iii) Whatever amount deposited by the appellant-Insurer shall be refunded to the concerned Officer on due identification and acknowledgment. iv) Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. v) No order as to costs. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9