- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37010 MFA No. 5605 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5605 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: BHUVANESWARI N. Y. S/O. YOGANARASIMHA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O. NELAMANE, K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DHANANJAYA N. K. S/O. KEMPEGOWDA N. K. P., MAJOR, R/O. NELAMANE, NO.2, K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438. 2. UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL INS CO. LTD., REP. BY MANAGER, EXPRESS IT PARK, EL 94, TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA, M.I.D.C. MAHAPE, NAVIMUMBAI - 400 710. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOKA H, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37010 MFA No. 5605 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1258/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 10.03.2017 passed in MVC No.1258/2013, by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. 2. The injured claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for injuries sustained in an accident before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record granted claiming compensation of Rs.12,80,000/- along with interest 18% per annum, however, the Tribunal dismissed the petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37010 MFA No. 5605 of 2017 3. It was mainly contended by the appellant that she was traveling with her mother and that she is an eye- witness to the accident, but she was not examined and accordingly, adverse inference was drawn under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, and the application was dismissed on the ground that she could not prove the accident. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has requested this Court to remand the matter, as the appellant intended to examine her mother, who is an eye-witness, before the Tribunal. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. 5. It is held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation from the date of order untill today i.e., from 10.03.2017 to 16.09.2025. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a specific direction to give a reasonable opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence and advance arguments. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37010 MFA No. 5605 of 2017 Tribunal is further directed to dispose of the matter on merits, by duly considering the evidence on record, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 6. Registry is directed to send back the records to the Tribunal within ten days. 7. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 10.10.2025. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52 CT: BHK