- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25953 MFA No. 5166 of 2014 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. 5166 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: AJIT HABBU S/O DAYANANDA HABBU, AGE 24 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE RESIDING AT NO.385-A, 18TH MAIN ROAD, 27TH CROSS ROAD, NEAR H.S.R. EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 68. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD HEGDE., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S V PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S DEVI W/O SRINIVAS AGE 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.197, 1ST MAIN, SUNAKKIBYLU, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE - 79. 2. S. GEETHA W/O KUMAR AGE 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.52, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25953 MFA No. 5166 of 2014 AMBEDKAR LAYOUT, YELLUKUNTE, H.S.R.LAYOUT, 3RD SECTOR, 22ND CROSS, BANGALORE - 78. 3. S BANU W/O KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.57, AMBEDKAR LAYOUT, YELLUKUNTE, H.S.R.LAYOUT, 3RD SECTOR, 22ND CROSS, BANGALORE - 78. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.991/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 34TH ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,56,000/-WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT. 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 respondent/owner of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25953 MFA No. 5166 of 2014 dated 21st November 2013, passed by the IX Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT (SCCH-7), Bangalore, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.991/2013. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 02.07.2007, at around 7.30 p.m., the deceased-Lakshmamma was proceeding as a pedestrian on 14th Main Road, 22nd Cross, III Sector, HSR Layout, Bangalore. At that time, she met with an accident due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-51-J-1924 belonging to respondent, by its rider. As a result, Lakshmamma sustained grievous injuries and while under going treatment she succumbed to the injuries on 09.07.2007. The daughter of claimant has filed this claim petition seeking compensation. 4. Respondent is the owner of the said motorcycle. He denied the contents of the claim petition and further - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25953 MFA No. 5166 of 2014 contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased and not rider of the motorcycle. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. The claimants to prove their case examined one witness as PW.1 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.12. Respondent examined one witness as RW-1 and marked documents as Exs.R-1 to R-3. 7. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment, awarded compensation of Rs.2,56,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The same is challenged in the present appeal. 8. I have heard the arguments. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in a criminal matter filed against the driver of offending vehicle for causing the accident in question, the concerned Magistrate Court acquitted him. It is held that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25953 MFA No. 5166 of 2014 in the said case that he was not responsible for the accident in question. Under these circumstances, the respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. 10. It further contended that the alleged accident occurred on 02.07.2007. The claimants had waited until the disposal of the criminal case and filed the claim petition after a lapse of nearly seven years. Therefore, it was contended that the petition was not maintainable. He further argued that, at the time of filing the claim petition, there was no restriction requiring it to be filed within a specific period. However, that did not imply that such a claim petition could be filed at any time; it was expected to be filed within a reasonable period. The delay of seven years in filing the petition remained unexplained. Hence, it was submitted that the claimants were not entitled to compensation. 11. He also contended that the amount of compensation awarded was excessive and prayed for its recalculation. In support of his submission, he relied on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25953 MFA No. 5166 of 2014 the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Purohit and Company Vs. Khatoonbee and Another, in Civil Appeal No.2555/2017 dated 09.02.2017 (it appears to be reported in (2017) 4 SCC 783). 12. The petitioners to prove their case examined petitioner-3 as PW-1. In her evidence, she has reiterated the petition averments and stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. She also mentioned the income of the deceased and the claimants' dependency on that income. In a thorough cross-examination, nothing was brought out to disbelieve her evidence regarding the involvement of the vehicle. Undisputedly, the vehicle was involved in the said accident. A criminal case in C.C. No. 1469/2009 was filed before the concerned JMFC Court at Bangalore, and the respondent was acquitted in the said case as the Court held that the guilt of the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, mere acquittal of an accused is not a ground for denying the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25953 MFA No. 5166 of 2014 compensation to the claimants. In the criminal Court, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the rash and negligent act of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, before the Tribunal, the claimants have to prove prima facie case of negligence and involvement of the vehicle. The standard of proof required to prove the guilt of an accused in a criminal case is different from proof of negligence before the Tribunal. Moreover, it was not an honorable acquittal of the respondent before the criminal Court. Hence, the findings of the Magistrate Court, where the criminal trial was conducted, are not binding on the Tribunal, and compensation cannot be denied on that basis. 13. As per the claim petitioner, the accident occurred on 02.07.2007. The claim petition was filed on 15.02.2013, about 7 years after the accident. Undisputedly, as on that date, there was no restriction or limitation on filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Prior to that, there had been a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25953 MFA No. 5166 of 2014 restriction under Section 166(3) of the Act, which required that such a petition be filed within a period of six months. If it was not filed within that period, the claimant was required to explain the delay in filing the claim petition. Since the said provision was amended during the year 1994, there is no restriction or limitation in filing the claim petition. 14. In the judgment cited in the case of Purohit (Supra), the facts are different. In that case, the claim petition was filed after lapse of more than 28 years. The respondent in that case challenged the said delay and contended that it was filed beyond the period prescribed under the Act. Therefore, the said claim petition was not maintainable. The contention was rejected by the Tribunal and that was challenged before the High Court by the owner of the vehicle and even before the High Court, the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the matter was taken to the Hon'ble Apex Court. Looking at the contentions of the parties, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that although there is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25953 MFA No. 5166 of 2014 no prescribed limitation period, that does not mean it could be filed at any moment, but it shall be filed within a reasonable time. A delay of 28 years in filing such a claim petition is not condonable and on that basis, the appeal was allowed and the judgments passed by the Tribunal as well as High Court were set aside. 15. In the present case, respondent has not taken delay as a ground in the written statement for rejection of the claim petition and during the course of the trial of the said case, the ground of delay was not at all urged. It appears for the first time the ground of delay is taken up in the present appeal. Of course, the question of law can be considered even during the appellate stage without pleadings. Section 166 of the Act was amended during the year 1994, and condition of filing of claim petitions within six months is taken away and therefore, there is no need to assign the reasons to file the claim petition after delay of six months. It appears that, this ground was not raised before the Tribunal. Hence, the claimants have also not - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25953 MFA No. 5166 of 2014 explained the reasons for delay in filing the claim petition. Both the parties have not urged prejudice caused by the delay in filing the claim petition. Unlike the Workmen's Compensation Act, under the Motor Vehicle Compensation Act, the claimants are entitled for interest only from the date of filing of the claim petition. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the claimants were probably awaiting the disposal of criminal case registered against the respondent and thereafter, filed the claim petition. Hence, on that ground claim petition cannot be rejected. 16. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the amount of compensation awarded is not exorbitant or fanciful. On that ground also the award does not call for any interference by this Court. 17. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25953 MFA No. 5166 of 2014 ii) The judgment and award dated 21st November 2013, passed in MVC.No.991/2013, by the IX Additional small Causes and Additional MACT, Bangalore, is confirmed. iii) Whatever amount deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK