- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30306 MFA No. 2321 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2321 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. SUBRAMANI @ SUBRAMANYA S/O LATE CHIDAMBARASABHAPATI PILAI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PROPRIETOR VELU ELECTRICALS PUMP HOUSE ROAD SAKALESHPURA PRESENTLY R/AT SAKALESHPURA-HASSAN ROAD VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION HASSAN-573 201 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.J. ANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI AVINASH S/O DHARMESH MAJOR BRIDGE NO.215, KSRTC BUS DRIVER K.S.R.T.C. DEPOT SAKALESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION K.S.R.T.C CHIKKAMAGALURU …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED ) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30306 MFA No. 2321 of 2020 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.07.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1858/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This appeal is under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the claimant aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 07.01.2020 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and M.A.C.T, Hassan, in M.V.C.No.1858/2017 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident was dismissed. The dismissal is primarily predicated on the Tribunal's finding that, the appellant failed to prove the very occurrence of the accident and the consequent involvement of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30306 MFA No. 2321 of 2020 18-F-366. The Tribunal appears to have treated the matter as one requiring strict proof akin to a criminal prosecution and rejected the appellant's case on grounds such as delay in lodging the FIR, absence of contemporaneous police investigation, minor inconsistencies in hospital documentation, and the supposed improbability of the incident, despite significant medical evidence on the contrary. 2. The facts as laid out in the claim petition and supported by evidence indicate that, on 23.12.2016, the appellant, while riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-46-A-0116 at Attihalli road, was involved in an accident with a KSRTC bus allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1. It is asserted that, the appellant, along with one Guruji, was thrown off the vehicle upon collision, resulting in grievous injuries, including fractures to multiple ribs and the right foot. The appellant was first taken to the Government Hospital at Sakleshpura and thereafter shifted to Yenepoya Hospital in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30306 MFA No. 2321 of 2020 Mangaluru, where he was admitted and treated for multiple days. Despite this, the tribunal disbelieved the occurrence of the accident itself, largely relying on procedural lapses and omissions by third parties, including the delay in lodging the FIR and absence of police visits during the initial treatment phase. 3. Heard the arguments of both sides on this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, erroneously, the learned tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner. He submits that, the very finding of the tribunal, that the said complaint was filed at a belated stage, so also medical records are not tallying with each other, is erroneous. 5. As against this submission, the counsel for the respondent submits that, rightly, as the claimant has not proved the accident itself, therefore, the tribunal has dismissed the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30306 MFA No. 2321 of 2020 6. In view of the rival submissions of both sides, this Court finds that, the tribunal, in its judgment, placed excessive reliance on the delay of over 3 months in filing the police complaint. While delay in lodging an FIR can, in some circumstances, cast a shadow on the claimant’s case, it cannot be treated as conclusive proof of falsity, especially in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is not governed by the same evidentiary standards applicable in criminal trials. In catena of decisions, including Kusum Lata v. Satbir, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 646, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation and that the claims under it must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt". The duty of the tribunal under Section 168 of the Act is to determine "just compensation", which requires a purposive, liberal, and practical approach to the evidence presented. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30306 MFA No. 2321 of 2020 7. What is most striking in the present case is the tribunal's disregard for Ex.P8, the Wound Certificate issued by the Government Hospital at Sakleshpura on the date of the accident. Ex.P8 records the injuries suffered by the appellant and states that, the injuries were sustained in a road traffic accident at approximately 02.30 p.m. on 23.12.2016 near Attihalli (Hongarala). The certificate notes the presence of a swelling, and deformity in the right ankle and blunt injury over the upper trunk on the right side, injuries that are entirely inconsistent with the mechanism of a vehicular collision. The nature, location, and gravity of injuries recorded in Ex.P8 corroborate the narrative of a two-wheeler rider being hit from the front or side of a larger vehicle, like a bus. 8. The tribunal sought to undermine the credibility of Ex. P8 by pointing out that, it did not mention the exact time of medical examination and that the corresponding OPD card, Ex.P15, lacked a printed serial number. This Court is of the considered view that, these reasons are - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30306 MFA No. 2321 of 2020 wholly inadequate to discredit a medical certificate issued by a Government Hospital and authenticated by attending doctors. In most Government hospitals, especially in smaller towns like Sakaleshpura, record - keeping practices may be subject to various logistical and administrative limitations. The absence of a serial number in an OPD Card cannot ipso facto suggest fabrication or falsity, particularly when the narrative in the injury certificate, OPD card, and the discharge summaries from Yenepoya Hospital (Exs. P10 and P12) consistently reinforce the claim that, the appellant had indeed suffered substantial physical trauma attributable to a motor accident. 9. In this context, it is important to reiterate that, Ex.P8 is not an isolated piece of evidence. It is corroborated by the case sheet from Yenepoya Hospital, marked as Ex. C1, which shows admission on the same day of the alleged accident and records multiple fractures, including a LISFRANCS variant fracture of the right foot - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30306 MFA No. 2321 of 2020 and fractures of the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ribs with lung contusion. It is medically implausible for such injuries to be self inflicted or staged. These injuries are high - energy in nature and require significant force, as typically seen in road traffic accidents. The diagnosis is not subjective; it is based on clinical findings and radiological investigations, which were further supported by X-rays produced at Exs.C2 to C6. 10. The learned tribunal also erred in doubting the appellant's version solely on the ground that, the pillion rider, Guruji, did not suffer any injuries, and his name did not appear in the consent forms at Yenepoya Hospital. The fact that the appellant's son signed the consent form is hardly surprising or suspicious. In emergencies, hospitals often require a next of kin to execute such documentation. A non-relative, such as a friend or a passenger, may not even be legally competent to do so. Drawing adverse inference from such procedural facts reveals a misplaced approach to evidence appreciation. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30306 MFA No. 2321 of 2020 The Tribunal failed to consider the consistency between the complaint, the medical records, and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 all of which pointed to the same narrative; that an accident occurred on 23.12.2016 involving a KSRTC bus and that the appellant sustained injuries as a result. 11. This Court further notes that, the police, after investigation, registered an FIR and filed a charge sheet against the KSRTC driver for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of IPC and Sections 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The tribunal dismissed this charge sheet as being of no evidentiary value solely because it was filed after some delay. However, there is no finding that the FIR or the charge sheet was fabricated or forged. In fact, the IMV reports were prepared and the vehicle seizure mahazar was drawn. The delay in police action, even if significant, cannot ipso facto discredit the entire narrative, particularly when supported by independent medical documentation. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30306 MFA No. 2321 of 2020 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656 has held that, "where there is a delay in lodging the FIR or registering the case, the Tribunal must examine whether the delay has been properly explained and whether the explanation is plausible". The Court emphasized that, a holistic view must be taken and not an overly technical one. In the present case, the appellant had explained the delay by stating that, he was under treatment and also misled by the assurances of the driver, who promised to bear the expenses and dissuaded the appellant from lodging a complaint. This explanation is not inherently improbable or concocted and is in fact borne out by many real-life experiences of victims who rely on such informal assurances, only to be let down. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, the Tribunal erred both in law and on facts in rejecting the claim petition. The standard applicable in a motor accident claim is one of preponderance of probabilities. When medical evidence - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30306 MFA No. 2321 of 2020 such as Ex. P8 and other medical records clearly supports the occurrence of injuries on the date and time alleged, and when hospital records and expert testimony from a treating doctor reinforce the same, the Tribunal ought not to have brushed aside such substantive material on minor procedural grounds. Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned judgment and award dated 07.01.2020 passed in M.V.C. No. 1858/2017 deserves to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 07.01.2020 passed in M.V.C. No.1858/2017 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and M.A.C.T at Hassan is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the III Additional District Judge and M.A.C.T., Hassan, for reconsideration in accordance with law. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30306 MFA No. 2321 of 2020 (iv) The Tribunal shall particularly examine the case afresh with due regard to the medical evidence, especially Ex.P8 and associated records, and determine the entitlement of the appellant to compensation. (v) Both the parties shall be afforded an opportunity to adduce any additional evidence, if they so desire. (vi) The remanded proceeding shall be concluded expeditiously. (vii) The parties to the petition shall appear before the Tribunal on 19.08.2025 without expecting any notice from it. There shall be no orders to cost. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27