- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26343 MFA No. 8091 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. 8091 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: SRI R C NARAYANASWAMY S/O CHIKKAGOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAGHUPATHI AGRAHARA VILLAGE, KYALANUR POST, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O KAIYAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE RESIDING AT TAVAREKERE VILLAGE & POST, HOSUR TALUK 561 210, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 2. THE CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.135/5, 2ND FLOOR, 15TH CROSS, 3RD PHASE, J P NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078 REP BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26343 MFA No. 8091 of 2014 (BY SRI H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R1- NARASIMHA MURTHY SD - UNREPRESENTED) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7877/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & XVII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. 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 claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 7th August 2013, passed by the M.A.C.T., Bengaluru, (for short 'the Tribunal'), (SCCH- 11) in MVC No.7877/2011, wherein the claimant's petition was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 05.09.2011, the petitioner was traveling in a passenger auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KA-07/8613. When the vehicle reached near Kallanduru Cross of Raghupathy Agrahara Village, the driver of the offending auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KA- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26343 MFA No. 8091 of 2014 53/8276 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and came to wrong side of the road, and hit the auto rickshaw in which the petitioner was traveling. As a result of the impact, the petitioner sustained fracture to the right patella. He took treatment at R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, and has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending Auto rickshaw. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and Respondent No.2-Insurer appeared and denied the averments in the claim petition and denied its liability to pay the 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 PWs-1 and PW-2 and marked 53 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-53. Respondent No.2 examined one witness - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26343 MFA No. 8091 of 2014 as RW-1 and marked four documents as per Exs.R-1 to R4. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the involvement of the offending Auto rickshaw was not proved. Hence dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the same, the claimant is before this Court. 8. Heard the arguments. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that a complaint was lodged within two hours of the accident, based on which an FIR was registered. The matter was duly investigated, and a charge sheet was filed. Prima facie, it was established that there was no collusion between the claimant and the owner of the offending auto rickshaw. The medical records clearly indicate that the claimant sustained a fracture to the right patella. To substantiate the disability, the claimant examined PW.2. Respondent No.2 has not contended that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident, nor has the respondent examined the driver of the offending auto rickshaw. All these aspects clearly indicate that claimant has proved his case. The Tribunal erroneously suspected the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26343 MFA No. 8091 of 2014 involvement of the offending vehicle, therefore, it is prayed to set aside the impugned judgment, and award just and reasonable amount of compensation. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish his case. The Tribunal has rightly observed that, despite the alleged rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, no damage was caused to the auto rickshaw in which the claimant was traveling. This, according to the respondent, indicates that the story presented by the claimant is false and fabricated solely for the purpose of claiming compensation. It is suggested that the claimant might have sustained injuries in a different accident and is falsely attributing them to the present incident. Further, it was argued that since three persons were traveling in the auto rickshaw, it is improbable for the claimant to have sustained such injuries without any damage being caused to either of the auto rickshaws involved. The Tribunal has rightly taken this aspect into consideration. Respondent No.2, in paragraph 3 of the written statement, has specifically contended that the claim petition has been filed in collusion with the driver and owner of the offending auto rickshaw. The Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26343 MFA No. 8091 of 2014 arrived at a just and correct conclusion, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 11. In the claim petition, petitioner has contended at paragraph No.22 that "On the way at about 09.15 a.m., near Anjenaya Swamy Temple, on Kyalanur-Kyalanur Cross Road, one Ape Passenger Auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-53-8276, came from opposite direction i.e., Kyalanur cross side, driven by its's driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, went to the wrong side of the road and dashed violently against the said Auto rickshaw. Due to impact, all the occupants of the said auto rickshaw were caught inside the vehicle and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries." This is narration of the accident by the claimant himself. 12. In consonance with the said pleadings he gave evidence in the form of affidavit, wherein at paragraph No.2, it is stated that "On the way at about 09.15 a.m., near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, on Kyalanur to Kyalanur Cross Road, one Ape Passenger Auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-53-8276, came from opposite direction i.e., - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26343 MFA No. 8091 of 2014 Kyalanur cross side, driven by it's driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, went to its wrong side of the road and dashed violently against the said Auto rickshaw in which I was travelling. Due to impact I sustained grievous injuries." and in the cross examination, he re- iterated the said fact and stated that the auto rickshaw coming from the opposite direction hit the right side of the auto rickshaw wherein he was travelling. All the pleadings and evidence on record indicate that the offending auto rickshaw collided with the auto rickshaw in which the claimant was traveling. As observed by the Tribunal, in all probability, such a collision would have caused damage to both vehicles. 13. The auto rickshaw in which the claimant was traveling was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who reported that there was no damage to the said vehicle. The claimant has not produced the motor vehicle inspection report of the offending auto rickshaw. However, he has produced a copy of the seizure mahazar of the offending vehicle, which clearly states that there was no - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26343 MFA No. 8091 of 2014 damage to that vehicle either. If the accident had occurred in a manner, as narrated in the above said pleading and evidence, then there must have been some damage to both the auto rickshaws. Since there was no damage caused to both the auto rickshaws, The Tribunal has rightly held that the involvement of both auto rickshaws in the said accident has not been proved. As narrated in the pleadings and evidence referred above, the auto rickshaw coming from the opposite direction was allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner came to the wrong side of the road. According to the claimant, he was seated on the right side of the auto rickshaw. If the offending vehicle came onto the wrong side of the road and collided to left side of auto in that event, the person seated on the left side would be more likely to sustain injuries. Therefore, the possibility of a person seated on the right side sustaining injuries is less probable, and this aspect has not been properly explained. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the charge sheet and its enclosures clearly indicated that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26343 MFA No. 8091 of 2014 auto rickshaw hit the right patella of the claimant, who was probably sitting on the right side of the auto rickshaw. The injury was thus sustained due to the impact. The counsel further submitted that the claimant being a rustic villager, was unable to provide proper instructions, which led to certain inconsistencies in the pleadings and evidence. While this explanation may be plausible, it is not open to the Court to re-investigate or go beyond the pleadings at this stage. Considering these factors, the Tribunal rightly rejected the claimant’s case and disbelieved the alleged involvement of the offending auto rickshaw in the accident. 15. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :- ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 7th August 2013, passed in MVC.No.7877/2011 by the M.A.C.T., Bangalore, (SCCH-11), is confirmed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26343 MFA No. 8091 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 NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11