- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38839 MFA No. 4357 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4357 OF 2020(MV-I) BETWEEN: ESHWARACHARI @ N ESHWARA CHARY, S/O NARAYANACHAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO 336/10, 7TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN, BDA PARK , BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085, NOW R/AT C/O SIDDARAMAIAH, BEHIND HP PETROL BUNK, T.S. HALLI CROSS, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 0067 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38839 MFA No. 4357 of 2020 AND: 1. ARMUGAM M., S/O K MALLAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT 2ND CROSS, GOKUL COLLEGE, VEERANJANEYA NAGAR, HAROHALLI, KOLAR - 563 102 2. THE LEGAL MANAGER M/S TATA AIF GE INS CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, JP AND DEVI JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE, NO. 66, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 6942/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-15), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38839 MFA No. 4357 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the dismissal of claim petition in MVC.No. 6942/2017 dated 01.04.2019 by the XIII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bengaluru, the claimant is before this court. 2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident. Is the case of the claimant that on 10.08.2017 at about 09.15 p.m. when he was riding scooter slowly and cautiously from Kadukodi to Channasandra when he reached in front of Patalamma temple, at that time one canter goods vehicle driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant’s vehicle due to which he fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition by order impugned and the Tribunal has observed that the claimant had produced OPD(8 in Nos) at Ex.P-11 in that it is mentioned as“ patient brought injury RTA while passing auto(3 wheeler) Touched auto body to two wheeler and fall down”. Then he has examined PW-2 who is the record keeper of Svasta Hospital. Along with discharge - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38839 MFA No. 4357 of 2020 summary i.e., Ex.P.18, it is stated that “Ankle alleged history of injury while was walking hit by two wheeler”. Tribunal considering Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.11 and the fact that the claimant has not produced the wound certificate to show in which hospital he has taken treatment and considering the contradictory versions in these two, tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimant has failed to prove that because of the negligence of the driver of the canter vehicle he has sustained the injuries. Further, the Tribunal had observed that police have not conducted the proper investigation since claimant was not admitted under MLC in both hospitals. Further, the IO has not collected wound certificate and wound certificate also not issued by the hospital. He has not examined the treated doctor, police have not collected proper evidence with respect to the delay in lodging the complaint and the police have not recorded the statements of the eye witness. Hence, the tribunal has dismissed the claim petition as the claimant has failed to prove that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the opposite vehicle. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38839 MFA No. 4357 of 2020 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that mere delay in giving the complaint cannot be a reason to dismiss the complaint. It is submitted that by placing cogent evidence before the court, the claimant could establish that the accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver on the offending vehicle. All these aspects were not considered by the court in its proper perspective. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.18 clearly reveals that the claimant had taken two different stands in support of his case and the documents which are placed before the court with two different versions. The tribunal had rightly held that, in the light of those contradictory versions with regard to the manner in which the accident had happened, had rightly dismissed the claim petition and there are no grounds to interfere. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. When an application is filed under Section 166 of MV Act, the burden lies on the claimant to prove that because of the rash and negligent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38839 MFA No. 4357 of 2020 driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident had taken place. In that regard, the claimant has adduced the evidence and he has mainly relied upon Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.18. In both exhibits, i.e., Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.18, how has he met with an accident, there are two different versions. In Exhibit P11 it says RTA while passing auto body to two wheeler and fall down. When it comes to Exhibit P.18 it says “Ankle alleged history of injury while was walking hit by two wheeler”. The mode of accident that is stated in those two documents, which are placed before the court by the claimant, gives two different versions. In these two documents two different versions are recorded. In those circumstances, the tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim petition and this court finds no reasons to interfere. i. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ii. 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. iii. No costs. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38839 MFA No. 4357 of 2020 iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 27