- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27727 MFA No. 4536 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4536 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., I FLOOR, S.S.COMPLEX, SUBASH SQUARE, HASSAN REPTD. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-580020 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GUNASHEKAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI BOODESH G. T. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O THIMMEGOWDA, HOSALINE ROAD, HASSAN-573201. 2. DR.SRINIVAS MAJOR, S/O MUTTEGOWDA.D, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER, MUTTIGE HIREHALLI, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAVANA B.K., ADV. FOR SRI. PRATHEEP K.C. ADV. FOR R1; Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27727 MFA No. 4536 of 2014 SRI. ANUPAMA., ADV. FOR SRI. GIRISH B., BALADARE, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.2174/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.32,184/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurer against judgment and award dated 10.03.2014 passed by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan and Additional MACT, in MVC.No.2174/2008. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 17.09.2007, at around 02:30 p.m., petitioner met with an accident by a car bearing registration No.KA-13-M-5680 due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, infront of Congress Bhavan at B.M. Road, Hassan. Due to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27727 MFA No. 4536 of 2014 the impact, he sustained head injury and other injuries and he was shifted to Mangala Hospital, Hassan. He took treatment as an inpatient for two months and spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. 4. It is the further case of the claimant that he was a contractor and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability and with these reasons he prays to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 6. Respondent No.1 in his written statement denied the contentions of the claim petitioner and further stated that the said vehicle was insured by the respondent No.2 and it is liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against him. 7. Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the contention of the claim petitioner and denied - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27727 MFA No. 4536 of 2014 it's liability to pay compensation and prays to dismiss the claim petition. 8. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 9. Claimant to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. Respondent No.2 is examined as RW.1 and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. 10. After appreciation of the materials on record, Tribunal held that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the car and awarded total compensation of Rs.32,184/- under various heads as follows: Sl. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering 20000.00 2. Medical expenses 6,284.00 3. Loss of earning during treatment 900.00 4. Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges 5,000.00 Total 32,184.00 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27727 MFA No. 4536 of 2014 11. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal. 12. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellant- insurer and respondent No.1-claimant. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that a false claim has been made by the claimant and respondent No.1 in collusion with the police. According to the claimant, respondent No.1 took him to the hospital on 17.09.2007. However, Ex.R2 indicates that he was brought to the hospital at 2:00 p.m., whereas the claimant asserts that the accident occurred at 2:30 p.m. This discrepancy suggests that he was taken to the hospital before the accident took place. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the date of admission mentioned in Ex.P8 is 19.09.2007, while the claimant maintains that he was admitted on the same day of the accident. Additionally, Ex.P9, the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, indicates damage to the vehicle, which further creates doubt on the claimant’s version of events. He further stated that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27727 MFA No. 4536 of 2014 respondent No.1 with an ulterior motive to get compensation, has filed this claim petition and prays to dismiss the claim petition by allowing the appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident, the same is admitted by respondent No.1, and that a complaint was lodged at the police station. Although there was a delay of 14 days in filing the complaint, this delay was properly explained by respondent No.1. The claimant was admitted as an inpatient in the hospital until 22.09.2007 and, due to the severity of his injuries, he was unable to lodge the complaint himself. Consequently, respondent No.1 filed the complaint on his behalf. There is no legal infirmity in the delayed filing. Under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the duty of the person involved in the accident to report the incident to the nearest police station, and respondent No.1 has complied with this statutory requirement. He further contended that the concerned hospital authority committed a mistake in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27727 MFA No. 4536 of 2014 mentioning the date and time while admitting the injured to the hospital. The same will not prevent the entitlement of the claimant in claiming the compensation. 15. The Tribunal has considered all these aspects and has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. Claimant could not file appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation, therefore he prays to dismiss the appeal by confirming the Tribunal order. 16. I anxiously verified the records. It is true that the complaint was lodged after 15 days, and it was filed by none other than respondent No.1, who has disputed the facts of the accident and the present claim petition by filing objections. In the complaint (Ex.P2), he admitted that his maternal uncle was driving the car in a negligent manner and caused the accident. He further stated that he later came to know that no complaint had been lodged by the victim of the incident. Therefore, he filed a complaint. Although the conduct of respondent No.1 appears to be questionable, this alone cannot be a ground to deny the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27727 MFA No. 4536 of 2014 claimant's right to compensation. The concerned police authorities, after conducting an investigation, have submitted a charge sheet in the case. 17. Ex.P9, the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, reveals that there were damages to the vehicle. However, looking at the manner in which the incident allegedly occurred, it does not appear that these damages were caused in the present accident. In this case, it seems that several errors exist in the records. It appears that, due to the head injuries sustained, the claimant was unable to file a complaint immediately, and the complaint was eventually lodged by respondent No.1 on 01.10.2007. After lodging the complaint, the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle on 03.10.2007 at around 4:00 p.m., and noted that the accident had occurred on 17.09.2007 at 9:30 p.m. He also referenced a letter from the police station requesting the inspection, which was issued after the FIR was registered. Therefore, the timing mentioned in Ex.P9 appears to be doubtful. In Ex.P2, it is stated that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27727 MFA No. 4536 of 2014 the claimant was immediately taken to Mangala Hospital, Hassan, and admitted there. Respondent No.2 has produced the discharge slip from that hospital, wherein, it is mentioned that he was admitted as inpatient on 17.09.2007 at 02:00 p.m. This raises serious concerns, as this suggests he was hospitalized before the alleged time of the accident. This is an another mistake in the documentary evidence. It is possible that the claimant had no role in the incorrect recording of these timings. The said hospital authority have committed a blunder in giving the wound certificate-Ex.P8 to the police. According to Ex.P8, the claimant was admitted on 19.09.2007 with a history of road traffic accident (H/o. R.T.A.) and treated for a head injury until 27.09.2007. However, in Ex.R2, issued by the same hospital, the date of discharge is mentioned as 18.09.2007. Both Ex.P8 and Ex.R2 were issued by the same hospital. It indicates that the authority while issuing the certificates had erroneously written the content, because of which there were inconsistencies in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27727 MFA No. 4536 of 2014 the date of admission, time of admission and date of discharge. 18. On the basis of such an error committed by the concerned person in the hospital, the case of the claimant cannot be doubted, that too after lapse of about 17 years. The claim petition cannot be dismissed on the basis of mistakes committed by those authorities, who ought to have exercised due care in recording accurate details, particularly when the matter was likely to come before a court of law, whether civil or criminal. Therefore that cannot be basis for setting aside the impugned judgment. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the contention of the appellant that a false case was filed in collusion with claimant, respondent No.1 and hospital authority is not probable. For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Appeal is dismissed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27727 MFA No. 4536 of 2014 ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 10.03.2014 in MVC.No.2174/2008 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan and Additional MACT, is hereby confirmed. iii) Send back the TCR along with a copy of this Judgment. iv) Whatever amount deposited by the Insurer shall be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23