- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35593 MFA No. 7573 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1100 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7573 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 2022 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 7573/2017 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD KRUTHIKA ARCADE, 1ST FLOOR H N PURA ROAD HASSAN - 573 102 NOW REP BY IT LEGAL MANAGER M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V.ARCADE BILAKAHALLI BANNERUGHATTA MAIN ROAD IIMB POST BANGALORE REPTD BY ITS ASST MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANJUNATHA S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS FISH BUSINESS, BESTHARA BEEDI, PETE ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 102 Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35593 MFA No. 7573 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1100 of 2022 2. MANJEGOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA UDDURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK - 573 102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANCHAN JAI NANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.85/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & MEMBER, MACT, ARKALGUD, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,80,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND ETC. IN MFA NO. 1100/2022 BETWEEN: MANJUNATHA S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BESTHARA BEEDI, PETE ARAKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DIST. PINCODE - 573 102 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANCHAN JAI NANDAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANJEGOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS UDDURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND POST PINCODE - 573 201 2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. THE MANAGER KRUTHIKA ARCADE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35593 MFA No. 7573 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1100 of 2022 1ST FLOOR H N PURA ROAD HASSAN TALUK AND DIST. PINCODE - 573 201 ...RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 23.02.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.85/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ARKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.85/2013 dated 01.08.2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Arkalgud, whereby the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,80,800/-, the Insurance Company is before this Court questioning the liability. 2. The claim petition was filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35593 MFA No. 7573 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1100 of 2022 3. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant on 08.07.2012 at 04.30 p.m. while he was walking on the side of the road, the rider of the Hero Honda bike came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant and as a result, he fell down on the road and sustained abrasion of the over right knee, abrasion over outer aspect of right leg and tibia tibula of right leg were fractured and he was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Arkalgudu. 4. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle is not at all involved and this particular vehicle is implicated in this case. In fact, the claimant had sustained injuries on 27.06.2012 and that was never stated in the claim petition and after the Insurance Company has marked Ex.R.2 and adduced evidence, it is the case of the claimant in the cross examination that he had sustained injuries and thereafter he has compromised with the owner and he has not filed the complaint. After that, he had sustained the injury on 08.07.2012 and the injuries that were sustained in the earlier accident and this accident is not one and the same. The Tribunal had not considered the case of the Insurance Company - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35593 MFA No. 7573 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1100 of 2022 and held that the vehicle is involved in the accident and has occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and granted the compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had failed to consider that there are two accidents. One is on 27.06.2012 and other is on 08.07.2012. The injuries that were sustained on 27.06.2012 are similar to that of 08.07.2012. The claimant had not stated about the earlier accident and when they have confronted with Ex.R.2 that is the copy of the MLC, then it is stated that he has compromised. It is submitted that it throws any amount of doubt on the case of the claimant which is crucial and which goes to the root of the matter and the Tribunal had failed to consider the submission of the Insurance Company. It is submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable as the vehicle in question is not involved in the accident. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submits that the injuries that were sustained on 27.06.2012 and 08.07.2012 are not one and the same. It is submitted that the MLC register was not produced and no issue is framed to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35593 MFA No. 7573 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1100 of 2022 that effect and without framing an issue and without adducing any evidence, Tribunal had rightly not considered the said submission made by the Insurance Company. It is submitted that without framing an issue any amount of evidence that is adduced cannot be looked into. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the materials on record. This Court finds force in the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company with regard to the 27.06.2012 and the 08.07.2012 accident and also non disclosure of the earlier accident by the claimant assumes more significance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no doubt, the Tribunal has not framed any issue in this regard. When the Insurance Company is disputing the accident and when it is the case that the vehicle is involved the burden lies on the claimant to prove that. The burden lies on the claimant to place before the Court all the relevant documents including the MLC register and other medical documents in support of his case. Unfortunately, no such documents are placed in this case. However, considering the submission, if an opportunity is given he would be placing all - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35593 MFA No. 7573 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1100 of 2022 the documents, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the award and remand the matter to the Tribunal for consideration only on this aspect with regard to the accident dated 08.07.2012 and 28.06.2012 the injuries and the vehicles that are involved in the said accident. Even the evidence of the claimant is evasive with regard to which vehicle is involved when he has compromised he cannot say that he do not know the owner of the vehicle. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA.No.7573/2017 and the appeal filed by the claimant are allowed by setting aside the award passed in MVC.No.85/2013 dated 01.08.2017 and matters are remanded back to the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Arkalgud. i. The Tribunal shall decide with regard to the accident dated 28.07.2012 and 28.06.2012. The injuries and the vehicles that are involved in the said accident. In this regard both the parties are at liberty to adduce the evidence. ii. Both the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 22.09.2025. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35593 MFA No. 7573 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1100 of 2022 iii. Within 5 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order the Tribunal shall decide the issue. iv. The registry is directed to return the trial Court records along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay. v. In MFA No.1100/2012, on 08.09.2022, the delay of 861 days is condoned by this court, on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance company is not liable to pay the interest for the delay period. vii. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred and that shall be kept in the fixed deposit. viii. No Costs. ix. All I.As pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE RJ/CT-SG