- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35359 MFA No. 7872 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7872 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.16, KUMARAKRUPA ROAD, NEAR SHIVANANDA CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001 BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. N.C. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKAPPA, NAGADASANAHALLI, RAJANUKUNTE POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 064 2. PANKAJA MAJOR, W/O. R. VIJENDRA, R/AT NAGENAHALLI, S.N. HALLI POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R. KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 SERVED) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35359 MFA No. 7872 of 2015 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5563/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,34,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the appellant has already advanced arguments. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents is absent. 3. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance company against the award of the Tribunal dated 29.06.2015 passed in MVC No.5563/2008 passed by the MACT, the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (for short 'Tribunal'). 4. The brief case of the petitioner is that on 30.04.2008 at about 11:30 a.m., he was proceeding as the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-50 E-980 on Bengaluru-Doddaballapura Road. When he came near Nagenahalli Bus Stop, the Maruthi Car bearing registration No.KA-02 N-7437 came from west to east direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motor cycle. Because - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35359 MFA No. 7872 of 2015 of which he fell down and suffered severe injuries all over the body. Accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver. Therefore, 2nd respondent being the RC owner and 1st respondent being the insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 5. The injured claimant filed the claim petition claiming compensation. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.6,34,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization in its entirety from 1st respondent. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal and mainly contended that the Maruti Car was falsely implicated in place of an unknown truck, which was examined by the Investigating Officer and the constable, and by relying upon the discharge summary marked as Ex.P6/Ex.R4. In the history of the case recorded therein, it is mentioned that the motor cycle was hit by a truck, and thus there is so much of variation regarding the identity of the offending vehicle. 7. The insurance company is not liable to pay compensation but the case has been filed against the owner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35359 MFA No. 7872 of 2015 and the insurer of the Maruthi Car bearing No. KA 02 N-7437. It is for the claimant to prove the involvement of the said vehicle, but they have failed to do so. As per the order of the Tribunal, the MLC extract, the doctors' notes as well as the case sheet only mention that the history of RTA indicates that the petitioner sustained injury to the left arm and left femur. However, no other details such as the date, time, place and nature of the vehicle are recorded, except the mention of its registration number. Since, the matter was already remanded, later the Doctor was examined and stated that due to a typographical error, the nature of the vehicle was shown in the discharge summary as a truck. The driver of the car is the husband of the owner of the car. It is further stated that the driver has produced certified copy of the order sheet in C.C. No.1145/2008, in which he pleaded guilty and paid the fine amount. 8. The Tribunal erred in observing that the Insurance Company failed to establish its defence. In fact, it was for the petitioner to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle and there was so much of variation in the documents produced before the Tribunal. The evidence of PW.3 is not of much use. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35359 MFA No. 7872 of 2015 Hence, this Court finds that the Tribunal erred in properly appreciating the facts and, as a result of which, erroneously fixed the liability on the Maruthi Car and directed the insurance company to deposit the entire amount. The said order is patently erroneous and is set aside. Therefore, on perusal of the records, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to allow the appeal. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, as the involvement of the vehicle was not established by the petitioner. 3. The Insurance Company is entitled to the refund of the amount and the amount already deposited shall be transferred to the MACT. The Insurance Company is at liberty to receive/withdraw the same. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40