- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5131 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. BHADREGOWDA , S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICIAN, R/AT.NO.37, NAGARAHOLENAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU - 560 091. ALSO AT: NO.34, ANDRAHALLI, YASHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 091. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH , S/O SRI HANUMAIAH, NO.66, 2ND MIAN, 6TH CROSS, VISHESHWARAIAH LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 097. 2. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.266, 1ST FLOOR, GANGADHARAPPA COMPLEX, SUNKADAKATTE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU - 560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JANARDHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.5455/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 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 claimants against judgment and award dated 05-12-2014 passed by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-18) (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC.No.5455/2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 21st July 2012, at around 3:00 p.m., the claimant was going as pillion - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04-EG- 2760. His friend was riding the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. At Basavanapalya Tank, it met with an accident and he suffered grievous injuries. He took treatment as inpatient and suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending motorcycle, and Respondent No. 2 is the insurer. Respondent No. 1 remained absent before the Tribunal. Respondent No. 2 filed a written statement contending that there was a delay of 23 days in filing the complaint. It has also contended that the motorcycle was falsely implicated to claim the compensation. Respondent No. 2 also denied the other allegations made in the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 6. The claimant to prove his case, examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 14 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-14. Respondents examined three witnesses as RW-1 to RW-3 and marked 5 documents as per Exs.R-1 to R-5. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the pleadings and evidence available on record, held that vehicle bearing registration No.KA-04- EG-2760 was not involved in the accident and it was falsely implicated in the accident to claim compensation. Therefore, respondents are not liable to pay compensation and dismissed the claim petition. 8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for both the sides. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that PW-1 in his evidence narrated the facts of the case and stated that accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider and in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 said accident, he sustained injuries. A complaint was lodged against the rider of the said motorcycle and after a thorough investigation, police submitted the charge sheet. The rider of the vehicle appeared before the competent court, pleaded guilty, and paid the fine. These facts are sufficient to allow the claim petition. 10. The learned Advocate for claimant further submits that in the cross-examination of PW-1, nothing was brought out to discredit his testimony. Respondent No. 2 relies on the MLC register, as well as the evidence of RW-2, and based on this, concluded that the accident did not occur due to the involvement of the offending motorcycle. However, considering the evidence presented by the claimant and the doctor, the Tribunal should have allowed the claim petition. The findings of the Tribunal are erroneous and therefore requires intervention by this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 11. The learned Advocate for claimant further contended that this petition is a summary trial proceedings. There is no need of proving the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle beyond reasonable doubt. With these reasons, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed to allow the claim petition and to award just and reasonable amount of compensation. 12. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments; 1. North West Karnataka Rd. Transport Corp Vs. Gourabai & Others1. 2. Yallappa Shivappa Sajali Vs. Ashok Ballappa Naik and Another2 3. National Ins., Co., Ltd., Vs. Shila Debi and Others3 4. Vojje Mahankali Vs. M.Satyanarayana and Another4 5. Manger, National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Rasheed Khan5 1 (2009) 15 SCC 165 2 2018 (1) KCCR 351 3 2020 ACJ 916 4 2021 ACJ 1309 5 2016 AAC 2254 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 6. Kusum Lata and Others Vs. Satbir and Others6 7. Minu Rout and Another Vs. Satya Pradyumma Mohapatra and Others7 8. Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins Co., Ltd., Vs. Vasanthapurani and Others8 9. Bajaj Allianz General Ins Co., Ltd., Vs. Smt. Lakshmamma and Others9 10. Sajeena Ikhbal and Others Vs. Mini Babu George and Others10 13. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 contended that there was a delay of 23 days in lodging the FIR. According to the claimant, the motorcycle rider was his friend, and he did not sustain any injury in the accident. Moreover, the claimant did not attempt to take his friend to the hospital for treatment; instead, another friend took him to the hospital. Neither of them filed a complaint. RW-2 testified that when the claimant was admitted to the hospital, he was conscious. He gave a 6 2011 ACJ 926 7 2013 ACJ 2544 8 2018 ACJ 233 9 2008 KANT M.A.C.145 (KANT) MFA NO.7493/2007 DD: 25.09.2007 10 2025 ACJ 11 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 statement about the history of the injury. According to the initial information given to RW-2, the claimant had met with an accident involving an autorickshaw. However, this information was later changed, as reflected in Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-4. 14. The claimant, owner of the offending vehicle and the police have colluded together and falsely involved the offending motorcycle in this accident, just to claim compensation from respondent No.2. The facts reported to the police are not true facts. After discussion and deliberations, it was fabricated. Respondent No.2 examined the concerned Investigating Officer as RW-3. In his detailed cross- examination, it was brought out that he was predetermined to file the charge sheet against the rider of the offending motorcycle. Consequently, he did not conduct a proper inquiry with the medical officer, who initially treated the claimant, nor did he collect a copy of the MLC register from the concerned hospital. Additionally, he failed to inquire about the delay in filing the complaint - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 and, without any valid justification for the 23-day delay, registered the FIR, investigated the matter, and submitted the charge sheet may be solely to assist the claimant in claiming compensation. 15. The learned Advocate for insurer further contends that respondents have produced sufficient materials to believe that the accident was not occurred due to involvement of the said offending vehicle and it was falsely implicated in this case. The Tribunal properly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly dismissed the claim petition by assigning justifiable reasons. It does not call for any interference by this Court. With these reasons, the learned counsel for respondent-insurer prayed to dismiss the appeal with costs. 16. I have anxiously perused the record. There is some substance in the contentions of the insurer. 17. PW.1, in his cross-examination, stated that immediately after the accident, one Lokesh, a friend of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 claimant, took him to the hospital and admitted him. The rider of the motorcycle was also his friend. PW-1 also stated that when he reached hospital, he regained consciousness. The claimant initially took treatment at the Government Hospital, Magadi, as inpatient for six days. Thereafter, he received further treatment as inpatient at Kempegowda Hospital at Bangalore, for 15 days. He has a wife and two children. According to him, since no known person was with him at that time, he was unable to file the complaint immediately after the accident. Undisputedly FIR was registered after delay of 23 days. 18. RW.2, i.e., Dr. Savitha K.R., in her evidence has stated that the claimant was conscious at the time of admission to the hospital and he came along with Lokesh. RW-2 stated that both Lokesh and claimant gave history of injury, which was recorded in the MLC register as: “ Patient was brought by his friend Lokesh with the history of RTA on 21.07.2012 – patient was hit by an autorickshaw while riding a two-wheeler.” - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 She also acknowledged the correction made in the said entry, which is marked as Ex.R.3. She volunteered that the patient changed his version from time to time; therefore, some corrections were made in Ex.R.3. Her evidence was not shaken in her cross-examination. 19. Undisputedly, there is no rivalry between the claimant and RW-2. On the basis of information given to her by the claimant, she recorded the history of injury in Ex.R-3. There was no reason to RW-2 to make wrong entry in Es.R-3. It is also significant to note that rider of the motorcycle has not sustained injuries in the accident. The rider was a close friend of the claimant. Even he did not try to shift him to hospital immediately. He was not at all in picture after the accident, which is doubtful. 20. It is true that there is a correction in the MLC register, for which RW.2 has given a proper explanation. Whether she had the authority to make such a correction or not is a different matter. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 21. It is worth noting that the FIR was lodged on 13.08.2012. Delay in filing of FIR was not properly explained in the FIR. Both the friends of claimant could have lodged the complaint. No explanation for not filing of complaint by them. RW-2 has stated that she had sent intimation. Her evidence is believed since it is routine course of business of the hospital to intimate of MLC cases to nearest police station. RW-3 denies without any materials of non receipt of said intimation, which is doubtful. 22. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he stated that he had no known persons to lodge the complaint. Therefore, there was a delay in lodging the complaint. The explanation is not believable as discussed above. In the normal circumstances to consider compensation cases delay may not come in the way of the Tribunal. But in doubtful cases where in there are materials to believe false implication of the vehicle delay has to be considered to appreciate probability of defense of insurer. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 23. It is a settled principle of law that, merely a charge sheet was filed against rider/driver of a vehicle by the police or such rider/driver pleads guilty cannot be the sole reason to assume culpability in accident cases. It only leads to an interference to prima facia accept the case that accident was caused by such a driver. However, if the other party is able to rebut such a presumption, then it must be reconsidered. The said presumption cannot be accepted blindly, as the Competent Authority must evaluate the evidence. At the time of the accident, his close friend Lokesh, the rider of the motorcycle, was with him and he pleaded guilty in court and paid the fine. It is not the claimant's case that he was unaware of the filing of the complaint. But his explanation that he could not lodge the complaint because his known persons were not with him is not acceptable. RW.3, in his evidence, has not obtained any explanation from PW.1 for the delay in lodging the complaint. Whether he recorded the statement of the complainant or not is unknown, since it's not placed - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 on record. These facts clearly reveal that the claimant sustained injury not in the manner in which he has stated before the Tribunal. 24. The Tribunal could not have received the information regarding the statement given by the claimant before the concerned Medical Officer. Only after the production of the said information by the respondent- insurer the claimant attempted to cover up his mistake, stating that the concerned doctor had wrongly recorded the history of the accident. These facts and materials on record raise serious doubts regarding the claimant’s contentions and the involvement of the vehicle belonging to respondent No. 1. It appears that, in order to claim compensation from the respondents, the claimant kept altering his version and falsely implicated the said vehicle in the accident. 25. In the aforementioned judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the rulings were rendered based on the specific facts of each case. This - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 Court, as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, passed judgments accordingly. However, as already noted, the facts of the present case indicate that the accident had not taken place in the manner alleged. 26. The Tribunal, in its detailed discussion of these facts, rightly concluded that the said vehicle was not involved in this accident. Hence, it dismissed the claim petition. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings. 27. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Compensation Act, particularly Sections 165 and 166 of the MV Act, are benevolent legislation. The main objective of the legislature is to compensate the victim of an accident in a genuine and truthful case. The proceedings are summary in nature and do not require a detailed investigation. 28. However, in some cases, these provisions are misused by filing false cases and manipulating records to suit the intended purpose. In such cases, the Tribunal has - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 to investigate the matter, and it cannot blindly accept that a charge sheet was laid against the rider or driver of the vehicle. The mere fact that a claimant comes before the Court and states that he sustained injuries, or that a person died, is not sufficient. 29. The Tribunal has taken proper care and caution in this case and meticulously considered the materials found to be believable on record, and rightly dismissed the claim petition. I do not find any reasons to interfere with the same. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative. Point No.2 : 30. Since the claimant miserably failed to prove that he sustained injuries in an accident involving the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-04-EG-2760, the question of liability of respondents No.1 and 2 to pay compensation does not arise. Therefore, there is no need to address the same. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 in the negative. Point No.3 : - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20914 MFA No. 5131 of 2015 31. For the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 05.12.2014 passed in MVC No.5455/2012 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) is confirmed. 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/bk List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK