- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25659 MFA No. 606 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 606 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.1651/6, M.H. BORAIAH BUILDING, BESIDE VIDYA GANAPATHI TEMPLE, VISHVESHWARAIAH ROAD, MANDYA-571 401. NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-01 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. SRI. ARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, OPP:KMF DAIRY, GEJJALAGERE POST, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. 2. SRI. V.M. GIRISHA S/O E. NAGARAJU R/O VALAGEREHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25659 MFA No. 606 of 2015 KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-11-U-2369) …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 26.05.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT, R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.219/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MADDUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.65,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 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 Insurance Company (Respondent No.2) challenging the judgment and award dated 16th October 2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur, (for short `Tribunal), in MVC.No.219/2010. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25659 MFA No. 606 of 2015 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 13.04.2010, at about 10.00 a.m., the claimant and her daughter were proceeding by walk on the left side of the road towards bus stand situated near KMF Dairy to go to Maddur town. They met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-11-U-2369 by its rider. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. She took treatment as inpatient in Government Hospital, Mandya and spent more than Rs.45,000/- towards medical expenses. She was aged 56 years, working as a coolie and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, the claimant prayed to award compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner, and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2-insurer filed written statements denying the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25659 MFA No. 606 of 2015 contentions of the claimant. It denied its liability to pay the compensation and also further contended that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. In order to prove her case, the claimant examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-5. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked three documents as Exs.R-1 to R-3. 7. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider and awarded the compensation of Rs.65,000/- by the impugned judgment. The same is challenged by the insurer in the present appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25659 MFA No. 606 of 2015 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- insurer. The respondents though were served with the notice, they remain unrepresented. 9.Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer contended that the offending motorcycle was not at all involved in the accident and that the claimant was hit by an unknown car; The police after investigation were unable to find out the particulars about the said car; There is a delay of three days in filing the complaint. Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment. The points that arise for my determination are : (i) Whether the accident took place due to involvement of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-11-U-2369? (ii) What order? 10. The claimant was examined as PW-1. In her evidence, she has stated that when she was going by walk, the rider of the motorcycle hit her and caused the accident, due to which, she sustained injuries. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25659 MFA No. 606 of 2015 11. PW-2, who is none other than the daughter of PW-1, who was going along with the claimant at the time of the accident, has also reiterated the said facts in her evidence. In her cross-examination, she has stated that when her mother was crossing the road, the accident occurred and it was around 12.00 noon. She denied the suggestion that her mother met with an accident by an unknown car. 12. PW-3 is said to be an eye witness to the incident and he was examined to prove the accident. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not given statement to the police about the accident. He took the claimant to the hospital at Mandya and he has not given any statement before the doctor. He denied the suggestion that some unknown car hit the claimant and fled away from the spot. 13. The complaint was lodged about the accident in question in Maddur Police Station, which was registered in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25659 MFA No. 606 of 2015 Crime No.228/2010. The police after investigation of the said case, submitted a report saying that the vehicle which was said to be involved in the accident i.e., hit and run case, was not traceable. Accordingly, they submitted a final report. The claimant cleverly has not produced the said document. However, the insurer has produced a copy of the said document marked as Ex.R-1, which indicates that the claimant stated before the doctor that she met with an accident involving a car that fled the scene after hitting her. The claimant has produced wound certificate at Ex.P-4. The very same document is produced by respondent No.2 at Ex.R-2 and MLC register at Ex.R-3. All the three documents report that "RTA at KMF Dairy, B.M.Road, around 10.00 a.m. on 13.04.2010, hit by car, number not given, while crossing the road". 14. Therefore, immediately after the accident, an information was given by the victim to the doctor stating that she sustained injuries by hit of a car, which fled away from the spot and she has not given the registration - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25659 MFA No. 606 of 2015 number of the said vehicle. PWs.1 and 2 have cleverly denied the said suggestion and says that they do not know what statement they have given to the doctor. But, they have not stated that PW-1 met with an accident by involvement of a car. As per the police report, the said car was not traceable. 15. The above said particulars leads to an inference that just to claim compensation, the claimant and owner of the offending vehicle have colluded together and that the claim petition was filed against the rider of the said vehicle and not against the person who really caused the accident. The claimant has not approached the Court with clean hands. When these materials placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought to have considered it with all seriousness and passed an appropriate order. The Tribunal has more or less totally ignored the endorsement in the said Ex.P-2 and Ex.R-2. The case of the claimant is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25659 MFA No. 606 of 2015 16. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act pertaining to awarding of compensation is a benevolent legislation. Looking at the fate of victim of an accident or legal heirs of a person who died in the accident, the said provisions are enacted. It is one of such instance wherein claimant has misused the said provisions of law and in collusion with the rider and owner of the motorcycle, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation though she knew that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident and that the vehicle which was involved in the accident was not traceable. Awarding of such a compensation for such a victim who had abused the process of Court will encourage such a person to file false claim petition just to claim compensation from the insurance company through process of Court by abusing the process of law. The Courts should not give any room to any such claims or such cases. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25659 MFA No. 606 of 2015 17. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments : (i) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited -vs- B.C.Kumar and another,1 (ii) Veerappa and another -vs- Siddappa and another,2 (iii) North West Karnataka Road Transport Corportion -vs- Gourabai and others, Civil Appeal No.3171/2009, dated 01.05.2009. 18. In all the three cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court held that fraud and justice cannot go together. When a person approaches the Court without clean hands, he/she is not entitled to relief and the history of the accident given to the doctor immediately after the accident has got more evidentiary value than the statement given before the police or the case made out before the Court. The principles of law laid down in the above said cases are applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the submission of learned 1 ILR 2009 KAR 2921 2 ILR 2009 KAR 3562 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25659 MFA No. 606 of 2015 counsel for the appellant is sustainable. Hence, the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. 19. For the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 16th October 2014, passed in MVC.No.219/2010, by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Maddur, is set aside. iii) The claim petition in MVC.No.219/2010 is dismissed. iv) Whatever amount deposited by the appellant-insurer before this Court shall be refunded to the appellant on due acknowledgement. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25659 MFA No. 606 of 2015 Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39