- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30526 M.F.A. No.4796/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4796/2013 (MV) BETWEEN: LOKESH S/O RAMA K.N. AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT. NO.39, I MAIN, 4TH CROSS SAMPIGE BADAVANE PRASHANTH NAGAR BANGALORE-560079. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASHA H.C. ADV.,) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD NO.105/107A, CEARS PLAZA GROUND FLOOR 136, RESIDENCY ROAD OPP BANGALORE CLUB BANGALORE-560025. 2. G.M. KANTHARAJA, MAJOR S/O MUNIYAPPA NO.287, GUNJAR POST VARTHU HOBLI, VARTHUR BANGALORE-560087. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV., FOR R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1908 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MVC NO.4008/2010 ON THE FILE OF THECHIEF JUDGE & PRL. MACT BANGALORE (SCCH-1) AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.06.2012 AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS AND ETC. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30526 M.F.A. No.4796/2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the dismissal of M.V.C.No.4008/2010 dated 05.06.2012 by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. The claim petition is filed by the appellant/petitioner seeking the compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 18.03.2010 at about 04.00 p.m. the petitioner/claimant was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle and when the motorcycle reached near Gundappa Hotel, a TVS Victor motorcycle driven by its rider at a high speed came in rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and without giving any signal and dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle from behind; as a result, the claimant had sustained injuries and shifted to hospital. On this aspect, the Tribunal has held that a perusal of the cross-examination shows that after the accident the claimant was shifted to Victoria Hospital at the first instance, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30526 M.F.A. No.4796/2013 wherein the father of the claimant has furnished the history of the accident as "when he was walking he was hit by a two wheeler", and from Victoria Hospital the claimant was shifted to K.C.General Hospital; at K.C.General Hospital, the father of the claimant has furnished the history of the accident as "two wheeler got toppled and sustained injuries". The history of the accident stated by the father of the claimant is apparently contradictory to one another. To quite contrast to the above two versions, in the complaint lodged by the very same person i.e., the father of the claimant on 30.03.2010, the history is furnished as while they were traveling on their motorcycle, the motorcycle in question came from behind and dashed against the motorcycle in which his son got injured. Looking at all this and the different versions that are putforth by the claimant, and there is 13 days delay in lodging the complaint and as no reasons are forthcoming for the delay, the Tribunal had disbelieved the version that the accident had taken place and accordingly dismissed the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the there is no dispute about the fact that the accident had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30526 M.F.A. No.4796/2013 happened and in the accident the claimant had sustained injuries and the Tribunal looking at the MLC register and the reasons stated, has dismissed the claim petition without any basis. It is submitted that the claimant is entitled for the compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company submits that the Tribunal had given anxious consideration to all the aspects and had given a categorical finding that looking at the different contradictory stands and reasons given by the claimant's father of how the accident had happened, the Tribunal had disbelieved and there are no reasons to interfere. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side, perused the entire material on record. In the claim petition, the stand of the claimant is that when he was traveling on a motorcycle as a pillion rider, a vehicle came in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the vehicle and in that process, the claimant had sustained injuries. There are three versions on how the accident has happened. Immediately when the claimant was admitted in one hospital, it was stated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30526 M.F.A. No.4796/2013 that "when he was walking, the accident has happened" and when he was shifted to another hospital, it was stated that "two wheeler got toppled and sustained injuries". Then when it comes to the complaint, it is stated that while both the son/claimant and the father are traveling on a motorcycle, the opposite vehicle came from behind and dashed against the motorcycle and the son got injured. The manner in which the father of the claimant has narrated the manner of accident shows any amount doubt that whether the accident has happened or not and also considering the delay of 13 days in lodging the complaint, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The appeal filed by the claimant 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30526 M.F.A. No.4796/2013 iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1