- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34174 MFA No. 4988 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4988 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. HANUMANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O MUDDAIAH RESIDING AT GANTIGANAHALLI VILLAGE KORATAGERE TOWN, TUMKURU. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SATHISHA T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.C. SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O VEERANNADEVARU RESIDING AT KODLAHALLI VILLAGE HALAVANAHALLI HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKURU - 572 101. 2. TATA AIG INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BANGALORE, NO.69, 2ND FLOOR, J.P. AND DEVI JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - SERVED) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34174 MFA No. 4988 of 2020 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.12.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO. 52/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT XIII, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the dismissal of claim petition in M.V.C.No.52/2012 dated 26.12.2017 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT XIII, Madhugiri, the appellant/claimant is before this Court. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 10.12.2011 at about 4.30 p.m., the claimant was going on the left side of the road carefully behind the government school. At that point of time, one luggage auto being driven by its driver in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed against the claimant. Due to the accident, the claimant fell down and sustained fractures of shaft of the left femur, left humerus, left distal end radius as per the wound certificate. It is the case that he took treatment as an inpatient - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34174 MFA No. 4988 of 2020 in Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedic, Bangalore from 11.12.2011 to 10.01.2012. 3. The tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that on perusal of Ex.P1-FIR, on the basis of the information received on 06.02.2012, the FIR is registered. The date of accident was on 10.12.0211 and there is a delay of 58 days. The reason for the delay shown in the FIR was that the parents of the injured are illiterate. The tribunal observed that during the cross-examination, the claimant stated that the luggage auto hit him from the backside whereas; the very complaint reveals that luggage auto came from the opposite direction. The very version of the claimant makes to doubt the complaint and the respondent No.2 disputed the very contention of the claimant that at the time of accident, he was proceeding by walk in Kambadahalli Road. 4. The tribunal had observed that surprisingly though the complaint was registered after 58 days of occurrence, no name of the driver of the offending vehicle finds place in FIR or in other documents till the filing of the charge sheet when the owner himself is available in the offending auto. Even - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34174 MFA No. 4988 of 2020 otherwise, it is presumed that the later came to the spot after hearing the accident, it is not understandable what prevented to lodge complaint against the driver or otherwise atleast inform about the accident and also the name of the driver to the police. The tribunal had observed that in order replace the actual driver and to implicate the driver who had the licence in a case where respondent No.1 and the petitioner might have taken 58 days to lodge the complaint. Apart from that, the accident register issued by Sanjay Gandhi Hospital marked as Ex.R8 clearly reveals that on the date of the accident, auto toppled, so it corroborates the statement given by PW2 before the Investigator - RW2. Therefore, it is clear from the oral and documentary evidence that the claimant in order to make gain out of the accident has filed a false case creating new story, which is not acceptable. The documents produced before the tribunal shows that the owner of the auto was along with the injured at the time of the accident and in those circumstances; the question arose why the complaint or the accident was not informed. All these factors probablises the contention of respondent No.2, the delay for lodging the complaint was caused only for implicating the driver to get the compensation, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34174 MFA No. 4988 of 2020 but not for the reason shown in the FIR in the complaint and the delay is not justified and accordingly, the tribunal has held that the claimant had failed to prove that while he was proceeding by walk, the accident had occurred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the evidence both oral and documentary in its proper perspective. It is submitted that mere delay in giving the complaint cannot be a reason for the tribunal to dismiss the petition. It is further submitted that after the FIR is filed, the police have conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. If the owner is aggrieved by the same, he would have questioned the same but the owner had not questioned the said charge sheet filed against him. In these circumstances, the tribunal ought not to have considered all these aspects and ought not to have dismissed the petition. He had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI VS. BHADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS1. He relied on para 17 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as under: 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34174 MFA No. 4988 of 2020 17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. 6. He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. VELU2. Para 3 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: 3. We have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and we do not think that the order of the High Court is sustainable for the simple reason that there was not even an iota of evidence before the Tribunal or before the High Court to have 2 LAWS (SC)-2024-12-123 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34174 MFA No. 4988 of 2020 shown that the injuries was sustained in a motor accident except for the delayed FIR. In a given case a delayed FIR will not matter. Merely because the FIR has been delayed a claim cannot be rejected but in the present case considering that all the available evidences points out towards a skid and fall and not a motor accident, the delayed FIR also, require a relevance, particularly now we have been told that FIR itself has not been proceeded. Even the police in the FIR also came to the conclusion that there was no motor accident and had filed a closure report. 7. Relying on the above judgments, learned counsel submits that the delay in giving the compliant cannot be a reason for the tribunal to dismiss the petition. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 / Insurance Company submits that the evidence of the witness runs contrary to the FIR, the contents of the claim petition and in fact, it supports the case of the insurance company that the delay in giving the complaint after 58 days is not justified and only for the purpose of claiming compensation, the present petition is filed implicating the driver. It is submitted that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34174 MFA No. 4988 of 2020 tribunal had rightly considered all the aspects and rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere. 9. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The tribunal had dismissed the claim petition. The tribunal had considered the fact that when the accident had occurred on 10.12.2011, the complaint was given on 06.02.2012 with a delay of 58 days. Further, in the claim petition it is stated that the luggage auto came from the opposite direction and hit the claimant. In his cross-examination, he had stated that the luggage auto came from the back side and hit the claimant. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the judgments of the Apex Court that mere delay in giving the FIR cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim petition. There are no hard and fast rule that in every case, where there is a delay in giving a complaint, the claim petition shall be dismissed. It all depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, the different versions of the claimant with regard to how the accident had taken place, the delay of 58 days assumes significance and the different versions that were taken by the claimant goes to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34174 MFA No. 4988 of 2020 root of the matter and creates doubt in the mind of the court with regard to the alleged accident. Considering all these aspects the tribunal had rightly dismissed the petition. Hence, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed. i. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. ii. No costs. iii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK