- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7364 OF 2015 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7362 OF 2015 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 7364/2015 BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE CHICKMAGALUR REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O LATE MURTHY K RESIDING AT KALLATHIPURA VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT 2. SRI PARASHURAMA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O LATE MURTHY K RESIDING AT KALLATHIPURA VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 3. SRI O B SATISHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O SRI ONKARAPPA, R.O BYRAPURA VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT (ALLEGED DRIVER OF TRACTOR-TRAILER 18/TA- 1470-1471) 4. SRI T VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, R/O BYRAPPA VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT (OWNER OF TRACTOR-TRAILER NO.KA-18/TA-1470- 1471) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGALINGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30/04/2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.131/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, MACT, TARIKERE, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.8,43,854/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITIONS TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. IN MFA NO. 7362/2015 BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 SHIVAMOGGA THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE CHICKAMAGALUR REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HARUSWAMY @ YERESWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE MARAPPA II CROSS SUNDARESH EXTENSION TARIKERE TOWN PERMANENT ADDRESS MALLIGENAHALLI LINGADAHALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT 2. SRI O B SATISHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O SRI ONKARAPPA R/O BYRAPURA VILLAGE TARIKERE TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT ALLEGED DRIVER OF TRACTOR TRAILER NO KA18/TA- 1470-1471 3. SRI H T VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE THIMMAPPA R/O BYRAPURA VILLAGE TARIKERE TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT ALLEGED DRIVER OF TRACTOR TRAILER NO KA18/TA-1470-1471 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGALINGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.133/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, AT TARIKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.46,493/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT Both these appeals arises out of judgment and award dated 30th April 2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Member Additional M.A.C.T., Tarikere, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC Nos.131/2013 and 133/2013. Both these are appeals filed by the insurer challenging its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the vehicle was falsely implicated in this case and rider of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 motorcycle is the claimant in MVC No.133/2013 was not holding a valid and effective driving license to ride the said class of vehicle. Although these appeals are slated for admission, with the consent of both the sides, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 17.05.2013, at around 09.20 p.m., the deceased-K.Murthy and claimant in MVC No.133/2013 Haruswamy @ Yereswamy were going on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-18/W-4831 towards Tarikere- Lingadahalli. Haruswamy @ Yereswamy was riding the vehicle and K.Murthy was a pillion rider. When they reached the spot of the accident, driver of a tractor-trailer bearing registration number KA-18/TA-1470 and 1471, came from the opposite direction at high speed in a rash - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle, wherein both were traveling. As a result, K.Murthy sustained fatal head injuries and died at the spot. Haruswamy @ Yereswamy, sustained Fractures and other injuries. He was taken to hospital and he took treatment as inpatient. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the tractor-trailer. 4. It is further case of the claimants in MVC No.131/2013 that the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident. He was working as daily wager in the Horticulture Department and was earning Rs.9,019/- per month. The claimants are his wife and son and they were dependent on his earnings. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 5. The claimant in MVC No.133/2013 contended that he was aged about 38 years; he was a coolie and earning Rs.9,000/- p.m. He sustained fracture and other injuries. He took treatment as inpatient in Mc. Ganna - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 Hospital, Shivamogga and Nanjappa Hospital, Shivamogga. He has spent more than Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 6. Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the Tractor-trailer bearing Reg.No.KA:18/TA-1470 and 1471. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in MVC No.131/2013 and remained ex parte in MVC No.133/2013. Respondent No.3 appeared in both the cases. The contention of the respondents in both matters are more or less similar. In MVC No.131/2013 they denied the contents of the claim petition and also denied involvement of the said vehicle in the accident. They further contended that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and they are not liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons, they prayed to dismiss the claim petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 7. Respondent No.3 in both the cases denied the contents of the claim petition and also denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. It also contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of rider of the motorcycle and the tractor was not at all involved in the accident. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 9. The claimants in MVC No.131/2013 examined one witness as PW-1 and marked 12 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-12 and in MVC No.133/2013 the claimant was examined one witness as PW-1 and marked 17 documents, as per EXs.P-1 to P-17. Respondents in both cases examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked documents as Exs.R-1 to R-8. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 10. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties and appreciating the materials available on record, by a common judgment and award dated 30.04.2015, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.8,43,854/- in MVC No.131/2013 and Rs.46,493/- in MVC No.133/2013 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The same is challenged in the present appeals. 11. I have heard the arguments. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that in the FIR vehicle numbers were not stated. The said vehicle was seized by the police on 16.07.2013. The motor vehicle reports of the said vehicle show that there was no damage to the vehicle. According to the claimants, there was collision between tractor as well as the motorcycle. The motorcycle sustained several damage to its front portion. According to the accident details stated in the claim petition and the evidence of PW-1, there should have been some damage to the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 tractor-trailer. It gives rise to an inference that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident. He further contended that from 18.05.2013, i.e., the date of registration of the FIR, till the said vehicle was seized, it was recorded as an unknown vehicle in all the police records. Police suspected involvement of a tractor-trailer. However, the vehicle seized, and as per Ex.P-7 i.e., the motor vehicle inspection report there was no damage to the tractor-trailer. The owner of the said tractor-trailer, who was cited as one of the eyewitnesses in the charge sheet, was examined before the criminal court in connection with the accident in question. In the said evidence, he turned hostile and stated that his vehicle was falsely implicated in this case. He denied the suggestions of the prosecutor in his cross-examination. He was not cross-examined by the accused in the said case. Therefore, the said evidence of Basavarajappa was not challenged by the claimants. Even in the criminal case, an eyewitness by name Nandeesha was examined as a - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 witness in the criminal case. The said evidence is at Ex.R- 5. He also denied being witness to the accident. 13. In MVC No.133/2013, the claimant stated that he had witnessed the vehicle number, but he did not report it to the police. According to his cross-examination, he is said to have given a statement to the police the day after the incident. These facts show that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident. The claimants in collusion with the police have falsely implicated the said vehicle with an intention to claim the compensation from respondent Nos.2 and 3. 14. Learned counsel for the insurer further contended that the claimant in MVC No.133/2013, during his cross-examination, stated that he was not in the habit of consuming liquor and had not consumed any liquor at the time of the accident. He stated that he had a driving license but he has not produced the same until the disposal of the case. From the map and spot mahazar as - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 well as the damage caused to the motorcycle, it is indicated that without acknowledgment and without having a driving license, he was carrying a pillion rider and hit a roadside stone and caused injuries. His medical reports also reveal that he had consumed alcohol when he was taken to the hospital. It is also indicated that his evidence is not trustworthy. The Tribunal has not considered these facts while discussing the amount and prayed to set aside the impugned judgment. 15. Learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contended that on the next day of the accident, one Parashuram, i.e., claimant No.2 in MVC No.131/2013, lodged the complaint to the police about the incident. The police registered the FIR and during the investigation police traced the vehicle number and thereafter, charge sheeted the driver of the said tractor-trailer. A criminal case was filed before the Magistrate against respondent No.1 herein. In the said case, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 134 of the Motor - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 Vehicles Act. Before the Tribunal there is no need to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubt. The written statement of respondent No.3 has not contended that rider of the motorcycle hit against the roadside stone and caused the accident. Therefore, it cannot contend so during trial. From the evidence of PW-1 in both the cases, it is proved that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the tractor-trailer. These facts are sufficient to believe that the said vehicle was involved in the accident. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 16. Following point arise for consideration: (i) Whether the Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident occurred due to involvement of the offending tractor-trailer bearing registration No.KA-18/TA-1470 & 1471? 17. PW-1 in MVC No.133/2013 was rider of the motorcycle. In his evidence, he has narrated the manner in which the accident occured. In his cross-examination, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 he says that, on the next day of the incident, in the morning, he gave a statement to police stating the registration number of the said vehicle. He mentioned that it was a tractor-trailer but did not know whether the trailer was loaded with goods. He claimed to have seen the vehicle’s registration number at the time of the accident. 18. The complaint was lodged by one Parashuram i.e., son of deceased-K. Murthy, who is claimant No.2 in MVC No.131/2013. According to him, his uncle, one Yallappa, informed him about the accident, and immediately thereafter, he went to the spot of the accident, where he found his father's dead body with visible injuries. The claimant in a connected matter had sustained fracture and he was unaware about the registration number of the vehicle. He suspected that it was tractor-trailer or some other vehicle. The police seized the offending vehicle on 16.07.2013. It was also noted therein that there was no damage to the said vehicle. The inquest of the dead body was conducted on 18.05.2013 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 between 09.30 p.m., to 11.30 p.m. and at that time also, there was no reference regarding the vehicle involved in the accident. The motor vehicle inspection report of the motorcycle is at Ex.P-6, which reveals the damage to the front portion of the vehicle. The motor vehicle report of the tractor-trailer is produced (probably both the MV reports together marked at Ex.P-6), MVI report of tractor reveals that there was no damage to the vehicle and it was intact. The said vehicle was inspected on 17.07.2013. 19. Ex.P-7 is the map of the spot of incident, which indicates that width of the road at the spot of the accident is 18 feet and the accident took place on the extreme left side of the road, near small bridge (culvert). 20. The submission of learned counsel for the claimant that for the first time on 08.07.2013, statements of the eyewitnesses were recorded by the police officer as per the charge sheet. Therefore, from 17.05.2013 till - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 08.07.2013, police had no information about the involvement of the said tractor-trailer. 21. It is also pertinent to note that as per Exs.P-9 and P-11, the patient had not lost his consciousness when he was admitted to the hospital. He was discharged from Mc. Gann Hospital on 05.06.2013. It appears that he was admitted to the Wenlock hospital during the year 2014, nearly 78 months after the date of accident. 22. PW-1 i.e., the claimant in MVC No.133/2013, has not stated any reasons or explained why the vehicle number was not reported to the police until 08.07.2013. 23. As per the evidence recorded by the Magistrate in a criminal case, which is placed on record as per Exs.P- 5 and P-7, both of them turned hostile. Even owner of the vehicle, who was examined in a criminal matter, says that his tractor was not at all involved in the accident. Ex.P-9 and Ex.R-9 i.e., medical records, indicate that the claimant's breath in MVC No.133/2013, smelled of alcohol. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 24. The statement of the claimant in MVC No.133/2013 was recorded in a criminal trial; a copy of the same is at Ex.R-10. According to the claimant, the driver of the tractor-trailer hit the motorcycle and fled away from the spot of incident. But he stated that he knew the registration number of the said vehicle. From the above said documents, one thing is very clear, that vehicle numbers were not given to the police from the date of the accident till 08.07.2013 or 16.07.2013, when the said vehicle was seized as per police record. There is no explanation in this regard by the claimant. It is true that on the next day of the incident a complaint was lodged. Therefore, it creates a serious doubt about the involvement of the said vehicle. The accident occurred during the night at about 09.30 p.m. on the main road; the road was straight and there was no damage to the tractor to corroborate the case of the claimant that it hit the motorcycle of the claimant. Even in a criminal case, though it may not be binding on the Tribunal, the owner of - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 the tractor has stated that the said vehicle was forcibly seized by the police two months after the alleged accident. This leads to an inference that the said vehicle was implicated in the accident; otherwise, there was no reason for the rider of the motorcycle, who is the claimant in MVC No.133/2013, to disclose the registration number of the vehicle to the police immediately after the accident, when he knew it. 25. It is true that in the case of motor vehicle claim petitions, there is no need of prove that the accident beyond reasonable doubt and under normal circumstances, the submission of the charge sheet is sufficient to believe the involvement of the vehicle and the accident. Even that is not necessary if an eyewitness is examined to prove the accident, because in MVC petitions, only the involvement of the vehicle is required. Thereafter, prima facie rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver must be established. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 in the case of Ranjeet and Another Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Another, (SLP (C) No.10351/2019) dated 25.02.2025. In that case, no eyewitnesses were examined to prove the accident and on that ground, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, which was confirmed by the High Court. Considering the facts of that case, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that non-examination of an eyewitness to the accident is not a ground to refuse compensation. However, that is not the fact in the present case. Therefore, the law laid down in the said judgment is not applicable. 26. From the above said discussions, the involvement of the vehicle is highly doubtful. The contention of the insurer that the said vehicle was implicated in this case just to claim the compensation to cover up the mistake of the claimant in MVC No.133/2013 cannot be ruled out. Otherwise, he would have given the registration number of the vehicle and proceeded with the matter immediately after the accident, without waiting for - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 a period of nearly two months to give the vehicle number to the police for investigation purposes. The Tribunal has not considered these facts and only on the basis of filing of the charge sheet held that the said vehicle was involved in the accident. The said finding is erroneous. Therefore, it needs interference. Accordingly, the above point is answered in favour of the appellant. 27. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeals are allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 30th April 2015, passed in MVC.Nos.131/2013 and 133/2013, by the Senior Civil Judge and Member M.A.C.T., Tarikere, is set aside. iii) The claim petitions are dismissed. iv) Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant-insurer in both the appeals shall be refunded to the insurance company. v) Draw award accordingly. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26444 MFA No. 7364 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7362 of 2015 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.: 7