- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.118 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: KARTHIK H U S/O UMESH H P, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O SHIRADANAHALLY VILLAGE, HEGGADDE POST, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201. NOW RESIDING AT CHANNAPATNA NEW HOUSING BOARD COLONY OPP NEW BUS STAND, 3RD CROSS, HASSAN – 573 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., OLD BUS STAND ROAD, MANJUNATHA COMPLEX, HASSAN – 573 201. 2. HASSAIN BAIG S/O ADAM BAIG, MAJOR, R/O MOCHI COLONY, PENSION MOHALLA, HASSAN – 573 201. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 (BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.08.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12/07/2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.630/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, HASSAN BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL BY AWARDING THE COMPENSATION BY RS.5,00,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST PER ANNUM IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; b) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF’S AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant against the judgment and award dated 12.07.2019, in MVC.No.630/2017, passed by the III Additional District Judge and MACT at Hassan (for short ‘Tribunal’), calling in question dismissal of the claim petition, on the premise that as per Exhibit-P1 - FIR, Exhibit-P2 – complaint and Exhibit-P3 – charge-sheet, the number of the motorcycle involved in the accident are different. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 2. A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present appeal as per the appellant are as under: On 26.03.2016, at 01:30 p.m., the appellant was proceeding on his Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-EZ- 9604 to Puradamma Temple along with pillion rider one Anil Monish, when they reached Somanahally cross, at that point of time a goods ape auto bearing Reg.No.KA- 27-B-0986 being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the said bike, as a result of which appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries on the right leg and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to S.C.Hospital, Hassan in 108 ambulance and thereafter for further treatment he was shifted to Tejaswini Hospital, Mangalore. Upon X-ray it was found that he has suffered fracture of tibia and fibula and undergone surgery to the right leg for insertion of rod. 3. The appellant has incurred an expenses in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and he - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 was inpatient for a period of 15 days. He was an agriculturist and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and due to the injuries he has suffered disability which is coming in the way of day to day work, he was made to take bed rest for the period of eight months and accordingly he filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 4. As per learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company: Though the written statement filed in the year 2018 the same was not taken on record by the Tribunal as the same was filed beyond the period of 90 days. 5. The Tribunal framed three points for consideration which reads are as under: i. “Whether the petitioner proves that, On 26.03.2016 at 1.30 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding on his Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.K.A.04-EZ-9604 to Puradamma - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 temple and while he was going near Somanahally Cross, at the said point of time, the driver of the oncoming Goods Auto bearing Reg.No.K.A.27-B-0986 has driven the said auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said bike, as a result of which, the petitioner fell down from the said bike and sustained injuries to his right leg and other parts of the body? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what quantum and from whom? iii. What order?” 6. In order to prove the case, the appellant was examined as PW.1 and produced twelve documents and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12 and also examined Dr.Poorna Chandra as PW.2 and she has the produced documents and marked as Ex.P-13 and also examined another Doctor as CW.1 through commission and marked as four documents as Ex.CW.1 to Ex.CW.4. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 7. The respondent neither examined nor produced any documents. 8. The Tribunal subsequent to trial after hearing the parties dismissed the claim petition, explaining the reasons more fully at para No.10 of its judgment, which reads as under: "The petitioner / P.W.1 has deposed in consonance with the petition averments and produced several documents like F.I.R. statement/Complaint, Charge Sheet, Injury Certificate, Crime details Form, Police Intimation, IMV Reports vide Exs.P.1 to 8. The Dudda Police have registered the crime in their Police Station Cr.No.78/2016 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279,337 of I.P.C. on 27-03-2016 at 10.00 a.m and had sent F.I.R. to the Court vide Ex.P.1 basing on the statement that given by one Anishmonish on the same day at about 8.30 to 9.00 a.m. vide Ex.P.2 by the said police at S.C.Hospital, Hassan wherein, the said Anishmonish has stated before the police that that on 26-03-2016 at 10.00 a.m. he was one of the pillion rider on the Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.K.A.04-FZ-9604 in order to proceed to Puradamma temple as the said Motor cycle, which was ridden by the petitioner from Shukravara santhe - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 and came to Hassan and at about 1.30 Somanahally cross the p.m. goods auto near bearing Reg. No.K.A.27-B-0986 which was driven by his driver in a rash and negligent manner from Nittur side and dashed to the petitioners Motor cycle, as a result of which, the rider along with his pillion rider have fallen. On the road and sustained grievous injuries on all parts of their body, the Respondent No.1, who was at the spot has consoled them and got admitted to the S.C.Hospital, Hassan in an 108 ambulance. The 1.0. has investigated the crime and has laid the charge sheet vide Ex.P.3 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279,337,338 of I.P.C. as against the driver of the Respondent No.1's vehicle namely Mohammed Fazil. During the course of investigation, the I.O has drawn the Spot Mahazar vide Ex.P.5 i.e., spot is shown by one Range Gowda on 27-03-2016 and drawn Mahazar in between 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. which further reveals that, the spot of the accident is situated on the Hassan-Nittur road i.e., the cross road that leads to Somanahally Village. The accident was occurred on the tar road that existed opposite to the Mand of Rangamma of Somanahally Village, and the accident spot is situated about 3 feet from the edge of the tar road towards southern left side from the eastern side and the said road lied in an East- West direction, which is about 20 ft. in width and it is a curve road. According to the statement that given - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 by the pillion rider, the Respondent No.1 who was the person at the spot has consoled both the petitioner and pillion rider and has shifted them to the hospital in an ambulance. But, the said Respondent No.1 is the best person to show the spot to the police while drawing Spot Mahazar vide Ex.P.5. The I.O has not chosen to cite the said Respondent No.1 as an eye witness in the charge sheet in respect of the said accident. The said pillion rider has not whispered about the presence of the said driver of the Respondent No.1's vehicle namely Mohammed Fazil, who has consoled and further shifted himself and the petitioner to the hospital in an ambulance, which creates suspicion in the mind of the Court as to whether the Respondent No.1's Vehicle was met in an accident i.e., dashed to the petitioner's bike, as because, on perusal of the IMV report vide Ex.P.8 goes to show that the Respondent No.1's vehicle was not at all damaged in the alleged accident. The P.W.1 has categorically admitted during the course of Cross-Examination that, the accident was occurred due head on collision, and if the said fact is believed, then in that event, there are chances of causing damage to the vehicle of the Respondent No.1's vehicle also. But, on looking into the damages that caused only to the Motor bike of the petitioner, it could be gathered that, the petitioner and the said pillion rider might have fallen - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 themselves and have, sustained injuries and the said petitioner's bike was alone sustained damages as revealed from Ex.P.7. In a similar manner, the spot is shown by one Range Gowda, who is cited as C.W.4, but whose name was not whispered by the said pillion rider in Ex.P.2. Further on perusal of Ex.P.5 it does not disclose about the presence of the vehicles at the spot and the petitioner has not chosen to produce the Seizure Mahazar of the said vehicles to show the conditions of the vehicles. On going through the Ex.P.5 pictograph it clearly establishes that the petitioner was riding his bike towards Somanahally in order to go Puradamma temple by passing on the Hassan-Nittur road, which is situated towards right side. The petitioner who is riding the Motor bike should be more cautious enough while taking deviation of his bike towards right side by observing the oncoming vehicles. The spot of the accident is looked into, it emerges that, the petitioner himself is a wrong doer as he has proceeded towards right side in order to go to Puradamma temple towards Somanahally cross without observing the oncoming vehicles. The spot of the accident is situated about 3 ft. away from the eastern side of the road, which leads to Hassan to Nittur i.e., towards western side. Moreover, the petitioner, who being a wrong doer is restricted from claiming compensation for his own wrong. Further on - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 perusal of the Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Statement and the charge sheet vide Ex.P.3, it revealed that, the petitioner's motor cycle bearing reg.no.KA.04-FZ- 9604 was met with an accident, but the same was finding place in the petition as well and further the petitioner while making amendment has given the to Registration number of the vehicle as K.A.04- EZ-9604, but the petitioner has not got chosen to examine the 1.0. to rectify the said mistake, that crept in spot mahazar vide Ex. P.5, which reveals that, the Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.K.A.04-EZ- 9604 was seized and IMV report Ex. P.7 reveals that KA.04-EZ-9604 was inspected by the RTO authorities, but in fact, the Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 statement and charge sheet Ex.P.3 reveals the Reg. No. of the Motor cycle as K.A.04-FZ-9604. therefore, it creates doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether the vehicle K.A.04-FZ-9604, was involved in the accident and if that is so, then why the said K.A.04-FZ-9604, has not been On going through the hospital seized by the I.O. ? records i.e., discharge summary pertaining S.C.Hospital, the petitioner was admitted to the said and he was hospital on 26-03- 2016 at 4.05 p.m. treated in the said hospital at 4.30 p.m. but there is overwriting in the date of discharge. Even though the P.W.2 Dr.Poorna Chandra came to be examined by the petitioner but he has not affixed his initial beneath the said - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 correction. But, whereas, Tejaswini Hospital, Mangalore record reveals that, the petitioner was admitted to the said hospital on 26-03-2016 at 11.10 p.m. the OPD card of the petitioner which is a part and parcel of the case sheet vide Ex.P.13 reveals that petitioner, was advised for admit in orthoward, the timings of the discharge has not been mentioned and also there is about mention the discharge of the petitioner against the advise of the Medical Officer. No doubt the injury Certificate vide Ex.P.4 reveals about the injuries sustained by the petitioner i.e., swelling plus # B.B. right leg, cmt wound 2 cm x 1 cm right temporal region of head. As per the opinion of the Doctor the Injury No.1 is grievous in nature and Injury No.2 is simple in nature. Therefore, this is of the considered view that, the petitioner has failed to prove the accident that caused due to the fault of the oncoming vehicle i.e, the Respondent No.1's vehicle, and thereby, the Point No.1 is answered in the "Negative"." 9. Calling in question, this judgment and decree the appellant is in appeal. 10. Heard Sri.Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.B.C.Shivannegowda, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 – Insurance Company and perused the entire appeal papers as well as trial Court records. 11. Sri.Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel with all vehemence submits that the vehicle which was involved in the accident was vehicle bearing No.KA-03-EZ-9604 whereas, in the complaint due to inadvertence one alphabet is mistakenly stated as ‘F’ instead of ‘E’. The entire charge-sheet papers filed by the Police clearly show that the vehicle involved in the accident is KA-03-EZ-9604 which belongs to the appellant. The Tribunal on hyper- technical view observed that there is mentioning of time in the hospital at one page as 04.05 p.m., and another page as 04:03 p.m., but the fact that the appellant was admitted to the hospital is not disputed, mere mentioning of time in two pages differently will not take away the entire case of the appellant. It is not the case that the appellant has not sustained any injury in the accident. The accident even as per the complaint has happened on - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 the very same day which reflects in the discharge summary at Ex.P-13 that the accident has taken place at 01:30 p.m. 12. In the absence of any records by the respondent - Insurance Company the trial Court permitted them to cross-examine on defence and on hyper-technical view the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there is suspicion regarding involvement of the vehicle. In these circumstances, the same has resulted in dismissal of petition. The appellant was not given proper opportunity to examine the I.O., though the document speaks itself. If an opportunity is given to the appellant, would have examined the I.O., to clarify the mistake crept in FIR as well as, in the charge-sheet. He also submits that it is a settled position of law that the FIR cannot be considered as an encyclopedia and it is just information of crime and setting the criminal law into motion. The entire thing which is to be looked into is the charge-sheet materials wherein the Investigating Officer after a proper investigation filed - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 entire papers and reports as per Section-173 of Cr.P.C., and accordingly, sought to allow the appeal and remand the matter providing an opportunity to examine the I.O., in order to eradicate the technical error that is crept in FIR, as well as in the charge-sheet materials because of mismatching of an alphabet in the vehicle number, though the vehicle belongs to the appellant. 13. Refuting the submission of learned counsel for the appellant Sri.B.C.Shivannegowda, with all vehemence submitted that though the FIR is just a report which sets the criminal law into motion, but it is the prima-facie material wherein the vehicle number is clearly stated, which differs from the charge-sheet material which creates suspicion that, there may be implanting of vehicle, in order to facilitate the appellant and the Tribunal has properly appreciated the entire materials before it, even there is discrepancies in the hospital records and has clearly come to the conclusion that the appellant has not proved point No.1 for consideration and accordingly, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 dismissed the petition which does not call for any interference. 14. In the alternative, he submits that though the written statement filed, was not taken on record, even in the absence of the written statement and based on the materials available before the Tribunal, the cross- examination of the party is permissible, since there is a discrepancy in the material placed by the appellant himself. In these circumstances, in the event, if this Court inclined to remand the matter, the Tribunal may be directed to take the written statement on record and provide appropriate opportunity to the Insurance Company to put forth its defence on all the averments taken in the written statement and if need be, to permit to file additional written statement. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the only point which arises for consideration of this Court in the appeal is: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 “Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition in the absence of defense statement by the respondent as well as without affording proper opportunity?” 16. It is not in dispute that the accident has occurred 26.03.2016, it is also not in dispute that the claim petition is filed against the Autorickshaw which is also involved in the accident and charge-sheet is filed against driver of the said Autorickshaw. It is also not in dispute that except the letter ‘E’ and ‘F’ all other information in respect of the vehicle is correctly mentioned except for the letter ‘E and F’ and the discrepancy in mentioning the date and time in the hospital records which moved the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the appellant has not proved the accident, is not attributable to the claimant. 17. The appellant has examined himself as PW.1 and two Doctors who have clearly stated the condition of the appellant, as well produced document in his support - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 except FIR all the other records produced by the appellant i.e., the police records clearly says that the number of the vehicle is KA-03-EZ-9604. Except for the reason of wrong mentioning of a letter in the FIR, all other documents have clearly stated the vehicle number. Even on perusal, except alphabet E and F there is no changes in the number of the motorcycle which is involved, which the appellant was riding at the time of accident. On over all consideration, the appellant has made out a case for interference in the judgment passed by the Tribunal, so also the Insurance Company, as rightly submitted by Sri.B.C.Shivannegowda the Tribunal on hyper-technical views though the application is filed along with the written statement has not taken the written statement on record which amounts to curtailing the right of the Insurance Company, which is dealing with the public money. In view of the same, the judgment requires to be set-aside, as suffering for infirmities. In view of the same, the appeal succeeds and this Court proceeds to pass the following order: - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.630/2017, dated 12.07.2019, is hereby set aside. iii) The matter is remanded to the concerned Tribunal for fresh enquiry after giving proper opportunity to both the parties to lead fresh evidence, along with a direction to take written statement filed by the Insurance Company on record and permit the Insurance Company to file additional written statement, if the Insurance Company wants to file any additional written statement on any technicalities or on any other technical points. iv) All contentions of the parties are left open. v) As the MVC of the year 2007 keeping in mind the pendency of the cases before the concerned - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27983 MFA No. 118 of 2020 Tribunal, this Court directs the concerned Tribunal to dispose of the present MVC as expeditiously as possible. vi) The parties are directed to Co-operate for the proper disposal of the case without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. vii) Office is directed to transmit the trial Court records forthwith, to enable the Tribunal to issue notice to both the parties and proceed with the case. Liberty is reserved to both the parties to move the Tribunal with copy of this order requesting for an early hearing of the case. viii) Under facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to cost. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1