- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4874-DB MFA No. 201313 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201139 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201313 OF 2018 (MV-I) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201139 OF 2018(MV-D) MFA No.201313/2018: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY AT BILOLI, THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER KAMASHETTI COMPLEX UDAGIR ROAD, NEAR NEW BUS STAND BIDAR REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY N.G. COMPLEX, OPP: MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA AT KALABURAGI …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANJAY M JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEVIDAS S/O MALSHETTY AGE 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRIL & BUSINESS R/O WAGDARI, NOW RESIDING AT HALBARGA TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR-585401. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4874-DB MFA No. 201313 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201139 of 2018 2. LAXUMAN S/O MARUTIRAO JADHAV AGE MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.MH-31/9745 R/O HIRA NAGAR THANDA TQ: MULKHED DIST: NANDED STATE MAHARASHTRA-430601. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETY, ADV. FOR R1; V/O. DATED 14.08.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.11.2017 OF THE ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, BIDAR IN MVC NO.407/2014 AWARDING COMPENSTION AMOUNT OF RS.40,000/- WITH 6% INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TO DATE OF DEPOSIT AND SET ASIDE THE SAME. IN MFA No.201139/2018: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AT BILOLI, THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER, KAMASHETTI COMPLEX UDAGIR ROAD, NEAR NEW BUS STAND BIDAR, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, N.G.COMPLEX, OPP.MINI VIDHAN-SOUDHA AT KALABURAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANJAY M JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PREETHI W/O LATE PANDIT MHADHA, AGE 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O TOGARI, NOW RESIDING AT HALBARGA, TQ.BHALKI, DIST.BIDAR-585401. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4874-DB MFA No. 201313 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201139 of 2018 2. KIRTHI D/O LATE PANDIT MHADHA AGE 12 YEARS, OCC. M/U/G OF HIS REAL MOTHER CLAIMANT NO.1 3. AMIT S/O LATE PANDIT MHADHA AGE 10 YEARS, OCC:M/U/G OF HIS REAL MOTHER CLAIMANT NO.1 4. HAWAGIRAO S/O SANGAPPA MHADHA AGE 69 YEARS, OCC.AGRIL R/O TOGARI, NOW AT HALBARGA, TQ.BHALKI, DIST.BIDAR-585401. 5. LAXUMNA S/O MARUTHIRAO JADHAV AGE MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.MH.31/9745 R/O HIRA NAGAR, THANDA, TQ.MUKHED, DIST.NANDED-431601. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R TO R4; V/O. DATED 22.06.2023, NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) MFA FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.11.2017 OF THE II ADDL. MACT, AND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR IN MVC NO.408/2014 AWARDING COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.37,40,600/- WITH 6% INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TO DATE OF DEPOSIT AND SET ASIDE THE SAME AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS MAY DEEMED JUST AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4874-DB MFA No. 201313 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201139 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) These two appeals are by the appellant - Insurer, calling in question judgment and award dated 24.11.2014, arising out of two motor vehicle claims i.e., MVC Nos.407/2014 and 408/2014, arising out of the same accident. MFA No.201313/2018 is filed in MVC No.407/2014, against claim for injuries and MFA No.201139/2018 is filed in MVC No.408/2014, against the death claim. 2. The date of accident, injury suffered by the respondent in MFA No.201313/2018 and death of Pandit Mhadhav in MFA.No.201139/2018 are not in dispute; the dispute involved in these appeals is regarding involvement of vehicle and liability to pay the compensation. 3. Heard Sri Sanjay M. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, learned counsel appearing for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4874-DB MFA No. 201313 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201139 of 2018 claimant/injured/respondent No.1 in MFA No.201139/2018 and claimants/respondents in MFA No.201313/2018. 4. Sri Sanjay M Joshi with all vehemence submits that, as per the FIR, the number of the vehicle involved in the accident was shown as MWZ-5374. However, while filing the charge sheet, the police have shown the vehicle involved in the accident as MH-31/9745. The claimants have suppressed the documents such as motor vehicle inspection report, as well as spot mahazar before the Tribunal. There is no explanation forthcoming as to what was the reason for the police to change the number of the vehicle altogether from MWZ-5374 to MH 31/9745. This shows that the vehicle has been implanted. In other words, the vehicle was falsely involved to facilitate the claimants by the police. As such, the Tribunal has failed to consider these aspects of the matter despite the police records and awarded the compensation fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to make good the compensation. 5. To buttress his argument, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VERSUS PREMLATA SHUKLA - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4874-DB MFA No. 201313 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201139 of 2018 AND OTHERS reported in 2007 13 SCC 476 and stressed on paragraph 15 to contend that, the party who has relied on the document, cannot go against the document, if it goes against him while considering the case by the Court regarding contents of the documents. Accordingly, Hon’ble Apex Court exonerated the Insurance Company by allowing the appeal. With this, the learned counsel for the appellant sought to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and award and exonerated the Insurance Company from paying the compensation. 6. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri Sharanbasappa K. Babashetty with all vehemence submits that, though the FIR was brought on record for the purpose of proving the accident and not for fixing the liability on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, the rash and negligence be proved on the basis of the records i.e., investigation undertaken by the Police. In the case on hand, the police during investigation found that there were two vehicles found on the spot and during the course of investigation was found that, it is the driver of vehicle bearing No.MH-31/9745 was responsible for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4874-DB MFA No. 201313 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201139 of 2018 the accident and filed charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle bearing No.MH.No.31/9745. The charge sheet filed by the Police was neither challenged by the owner nor by the insurer. The insurer has failed to discharge its burden by summoning the Investigation Officer, though it has taken a specific contention in the statement of objection filed to the claim petition. In the absence of discharging the burden, the Tribunal having found that the records placed before it, which are the part of the investigation conducted by the police on the basis of First Information Registered and during the course of investigation found that the driver of vehicle bearing No.MH.31/9745 responsible for the accident, accordingly filed charge sheet. In these circumstances, there cannot be any error found in the judgment of the Tribunal and sought to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers as well as Trial Court Record, the only question which would arise for our consideration is Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the driver of vehicle bearing - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4874-DB MFA No. 201313 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201139 of 2018 No.MH.31/9745 is responsible for causing the accident while answering Issue No.1? if the answer is otherwise, whether there is any interference required at the hands of this Court? 8. Our answer to the above point for consideration is in ‘affirmative’ for the following REASON 9. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the first blush it was appealing to us that, there is change in the vehicle number, but subsequently after going through the investigation papers, it is revealed that the police during the investigation have found that there were two vehicles found on the spot. The police on the basis of the statements of the witnesses collected during the course of investigation found that the driver of vehicle bearing No.MH 31/4974 was responsible for the accident, accordingly filed charge sheet. Though the Insurance Company has taken a specific contention that there is involvement of the vehicle, however, the Insurance Company has not discharged its - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4874-DB MFA No. 201313 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201139 of 2018 obligation by summoning the investigation officer before the Court to substantiate its claim. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal while answering Issue No.1. That apart, it cannot be lost sight that neither the owner of the vehicle nor the insurer have challenged the charge sheet filed against the particular vehicle, when a different vehicle shown in the FIR. As such, an adverse inference required to be taken against the insured as well as the insurer for non discharging of their obligation in terms of Evidence Act, 1872. The judgment referred by the appellant - Insurance Company goes against the interest of Insurance Company. In paragraph No.15, which has been relied on by the Insurance Company is extracted by us for easy reference “15. A party objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise its objection at the appropriate time. If the objection is not raised and the document is allowed to be marked and that too at the instance of a party which had proved the same and wherefor consent of the other party has been obtained, the former in our opinion cannot be permitted to turn round and raise a contention that the contents of the documents had not been proved and, thus, should not be relied upon. In Hukam Singh (supra), the law was correctly been laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court stating - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4874-DB MFA No. 201313 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201139 of 2018 "8. Mr. G.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent contended that Ram Partap had produced only his former deposition and gave no evidence in Court which could be considered by the Additional District Judge. I am afraid there is no merit in this contention. The Trial Court had discussed the evidence of Ram Partap in the light of the report Exhibit D.1 produced by him. The Additional District Judge while hearing the appeal could have commented on that evidence and held it to be inadmissible if law so permitted. But he did not at all have this evidence before his mind. It was not a case of inadmissible evidence either. No doubt the procedure adopted by the trial Court in letting in a certified copy of the previous deposition of Ram Partap made in the criminal proceedings and allowing the same to be proved by Ram Partap himself was not correct and he should have been examined again in regard to all that he had stated earlier in the statement the parties in order to save time did not object to the previous deposition being proved by Ram Partap himself who was only cross-examined. It is not a case where irrelevant evidence had been let in with the consent of the parties but the only objection is that the procedure followed in the matter of giving evidence in Court was not correct. When the parties themselves have allowed certain statements to be placed on the record as as a part of their evidence, it is not open to them to urge later either in the same Court or in a court of appeal that the evidence produced was inadmissible. To allow - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4874-DB MFA No. 201313 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201139 of 2018 them to do so would indeed be permitting them both to appropriate and reprobate." “ 10. From going through the said paragraph, it is clear that a party objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise its objection at the appropriate time. If an objection is not raised, and the document is allowed to be marked—particularly at the instance of that party—then once the document is marked without objection, that party cannot subsequently raise an objection by contending that the document is inconsistent with another or that its contents have not been proved. In the case on hand, though in the FIR a different vehicle number is shown, however, the police after conducting a thorough investigation filed charge sheet after considering the statement of the witnesses that it is the driver of MH No.31/9745 vehicle was responsible for the accident and filed charge sheet. Once the charge sheet has been marked before the Court without there being any objection, the insurer according to us is now cannot be permitted to take a U-turn and say that the charge sheet filed is erroneous without any challenge to the said charge sheet. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4874-DB MFA No. 201313 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201139 of 2018 11. In the circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal while answering Issue No.1 holding that the driver of MH No.31/9745 has driven the vehicle in rash and negligent responsible for the accident, resulting in injuries to respondent in MFA No.201313/2018 and death in respect of MFA No.201139/2018. 12. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Both the appeals have no merits and ` accordingly, dismissed. ii) The amount in deposit in both the appeals be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. iii) The appellant - insurer in both the appeals shall deposit the balance amount along with the accrued interest before the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4874-DB MFA No. 201313 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201139 of 2018 iv) All other directions of the Tribunal are unaltered. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 CT:JLR