- 1 - MFA No. 6913 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6913 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. UDAYA PRAKASH SON OF PREMADAS, ADULT RESIDING AT DATTA APARTMENT, FLAT NO.101, KANTHARAJASHETTY LANE, MANNAGUDDA, MANGALORE-575 003. 2. RISHAB SON OF UDAYA PRAKASH, AGED 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT DATTA APARTMENT, FLAT NO.101, KANTHARAJASHETTY LANE, MANNAGUDDA, MANGALORE-575 003. …APPELLANTS (BY MS. AMRITHA A NARADA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH CHANDRA S N., ADVOCATE) AND: SAMEEM AHAMMAD SON OF LATE MOIDEEN, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR BADRIYA MOSQUE, BEJAI 2ND CROSS, BEJAI NEW ROAD, MANALORE-575 004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE) - 2 - MFA No. 6913 of 2015 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.1576/2013, ON THE FILE OF COURT PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANGALORE AND FURTHER SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.01.2015 IN MVC NO.1576/2013 ON THE FILE OF COURT PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANGALORE AND FOR COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS THROUGH OUT AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF’S IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 19.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is by the appellants/rider & owner seeking for setting aside the judgment and award dated 27.01.2015 in MVC No.1576/2013, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mangalore (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. The appellants are the rider and owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent is the claimant before the Tribunal. - 3 - MFA No. 6913 of 2015 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal for easy reference. 4. The brief facts of the case are that:- On 12.09.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding towards his house by riding motor cycle bearing No.KA-19-ED-199 from Kudroli towards Mannaguda side, at that time, motor cycle bearing No.KA-19-ED-7088 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner’s motor cycle. Due to which, petitioner sustained injuries. Hence, filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1989 seeking for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 5. After issuance of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and jointly filed written statement. 6. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner got himself examined as PW-1 and examined Office Manager of Ullal Nursing Home as PW-2 and also examined one witness as PW-3 and got - 4 - MFA No. 6913 of 2015 marked documents at Exs.P1 to P16. On the other hand, respondents have examined themselves as RWs-1 and 2 and got marked one document as Ex.R.1. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and held that the rider and owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay a total compensation of Rs.35,000/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has denied the alleged accident. The owner and rider of the offending vehicle have examined themselves as RWs-1 and 2 and in their evidence, they have deposed that on 12.09.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., they were proceeding to their house on Motor cycle bearing No.KA-19-ED-7088 and further deposed that they were in need of some items from nearby shop, they had parked the vehicle adjacent to the road on the right side beyond the road, as one proceeds from Durga Mahal junction towards Gokarnanatha temple side. Further RW-1 deposed that when he was coming out - 5 - MFA No. 6913 of 2015 of the shop after purchasing, at that time, the petitioner being rider of the Motor cycle bearing No.KA-19-ED-199 came in a rash and negligent manner and he was approaching towards his son, who was standing by the side of the road beside the parked offending vehicle and the petitioner in order to avoid the hitting of opposite vehicle applied sudden brake and lost control over his motor cycle, got skid and hit the offending vehicle. Due to which, offending vehicle got damaged. He further deposed that the accident took place on 12.09.2013 and there was no case registered on the same day. The complaint regarding the accident was given on 02.10.2013. On 02.10.2013, the respondent got himself admitted to the hospital for alleged injuries and MLC was filed. There is inordinate delay of 20 days in filing the complaint and the delay has not been properly explained by the complainant. Inspite of such delay, firstly the Tribunal has erred in not considering the said fact. Secondly, the Tribunal has not properly considered the mannerism of the accident. - 6 - MFA No. 6913 of 2015 Hence, prays to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – claimant submits that the Tribunal after considering entire material placed before it, awarded appropriate compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused entire material on record. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment in the case of Harkhu Bai and others vs. Jiyaram and others dated 10.07.2003 reported in 2005 ACJ 1332, wherein at paragraph No.15, it has held as under:- “15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The - 7 - MFA No. 6913 of 2015 claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. “ 12. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following judgments:- 1. In the case of N.K.V.Bros.(P) Ltd., vs. M. Karumai Ammal and others reported in (1980) 3 SCC 457; 2. In the case of Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530. After going through the judgment produced by the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the opinion that the said judgment is not applicable to the case on hand. 13. The Tribunal has recorded a finding in paragraph No.15 as under:- “15. No doubt, there was an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, but that itself is not a ground to draw an adverse inference as to the occurrence of the accident. No doubt, injured has not approached hospital or Police station till 2.10.2013, even that itself is also not a ground to draw adverse inference as to the occurrence - 8 - MFA No. 6913 of 2015 of accident. Because, in the complaint, complainant has specifically stated after accident on 12.9.2013 respondent No.2 being the father of respondent No.1 came to the spot and took both the injured i.e., himself and respondent No.1 in his car bearing No. KA-19-MB- 6240 to Ullal Nursing Home. Further in the complaint he has stated, on that day respondent No.2 has requested him not to approach Police and he is ready to bear medical expenses. In the complaint complainant has stated, thereafter respondent No.2 has given his mobile number as 9916288015. Further in the complaint it has stated after some day complainant attempted to contact respondent No.2 over his mobile phone, but there was no reply to the phone call of complainant. In the cross examination R.W.1 has specifically admitted that he is having mobile No.9916288015 and he is having car bearing No.KA-19-MB 6240. This being the fact, this tribunal is the opinion that delay in filing the complaint is not a fatal to the case of the petitioner. Delay if any has caused, is on account of request made by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner. On perusal of records, it reveals, respondent No.1 being the son of respondent No.2, was not holding valid and effective driving license to ride the motor cycle as he might have attained age of majority during those days. In Ex.P9 which is charge sheet it has specifically mentioned respondent No.2 being owner of the motor cycle has handed over motor cycle to a person who was not holding valid and effective driving license. Further in the charge sheet it has mentioned offended motor cycle was not insured with any insurance company. It reveals, respondent No.2 being the father of the respondent No.1 and he being owner of the said - 9 - MFA No. 6913 of 2015 motor vehicle only with an apprehension of Police, he might have requested the petitioner not to approach police. Such being the fact, I am of the opinion that delay if any caused in filing the complaint is not fatal to the case of the petitioner. Hence, viewed from any angle, this tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner has proved actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-19-ED 7088 i.e. by respondent No.1. Hence, my answer to this issue is in Affirmative. 14. On hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and on perusing the record, this Court has observed that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and material on record and rightly awarded compensation to the claimant by fastening the liability on the appellants. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits to interfere with the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal lacks merits and the same has to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. - 10 - MFA No. 6913 of 2015 ii) The judgment and award dated 27.01.2015 in MVC No.1576/2013 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mangalore, is hereby affirmed. iii) The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal along with accrued interest if any, shall be deposited by the appellants, within eight weeks from the date of filing of the petition till realization; iv) Amount in deposit along with accrued interest, if any shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. v) Registry is directed to send back the TCR to the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE MH/-