- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30612 MFA No. 824 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 824 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT RUKMINI W/O LATE SIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O OOGINAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K R PET TALUK 2. YATHISHA S/O LATE SIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, R/O OOGINAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K R PET TALUK 3. TEJASKUMAR S/O LATE SIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, R/O OOGINAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K R PET TALUK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI .,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30612 MFA No. 824 of 2015 AND: 1. T PURUSHOTTAMA S/O T THIMMARAYISHETTI, R/O SRINIVASA NILAYA DEVANGE STREET, HOLENRASIPURA TOWN, HOLENRASIPURA TALUK, HASANA DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSRANCE CO LTD, IST FLOOR, S S COMPLE,X SUBHASH CHOWKA, HASANA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O MAHESH ADVOCATE FOR R2., R-1 SERVED) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 5.9.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1138/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, K.R.PET, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Appellant's counsel present. 2. I.A.No.1/2018 is filed by learned counsel for the appellant on 05.02.2018, under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for production of additional evidence, in which it is stated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30612 MFA No. 824 of 2015 that after the accident RC owner of the vehicle along with driver initially paid Rs.5,000/- and promised to pay compensation and requested not to file any complaint and later panchayath was also conducted, but the RC owner did not turn up, as such there was delay in filing the FIR. 3. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground of delayed FIR. As the petitioner is illiterate, she could not examine the Investigating Officer. Therefore, requests this Court to allow the application and to remand the matter for examining the Investigating Officer. 4. Till today objections are not filed. Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and reasonable opportunity is to be granted to the litigant. It is a case of death. In view of the promise of RC owner of the vehicle, they could not file the complaint in time and now she intends to examine the Investigating Officer. Therefore, this Court finds it just and reasonable to allow the application. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30612 MFA No. 824 of 2015 5. Accordingly I.A.No.1/2018 is allowed and appeal is remanded to the concerned Tribunal with a specific direction to examine the Investigating Officer and to dispose of the matter on merits, by duly giving opportunity to both the parties and also on considering the entire evidence and arguments of both the sides, within three months from the date of receipt of the records. 6. Registry is directed to send the records to the concerned Tribunal within ten days from the date of this order. [7. Consequent to allowing I.A.No.1/2018, the appeal is remanded to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57