- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200060/2018 (MV-I) C/W. MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200059/2018(MV-I) IN MFA NO.200060/2018: BETWEEN: PARASURAM S/O PEERAPPA YALAGOD, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O DEVAR-HIPPARRAGI, TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA, NOW RESIDING AT IBRAHIMPUR PETH, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHAMMADHANIF S/O MAHAMMADGOUSE DAFEDAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O WATER GANJI DARBAR GALLI, BAGALAKOT CROSS ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 2. THE DEPUTY MANAGER LEGAL, FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PASABENA, NO.18/1 (OLD NO.125/A), IIIRD FLOOR, ‘E’ ZONE BUILDING, ASHOKA PILLAR ROAD, JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 011. 3. VENKANNA S/O RAMAPPA KORADDI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SAI NIVAS, SRI DESHPANDE NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VINAYAK APTE, ADVOCATE, FOR R1; SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE, FOR R2; R3-SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1602/2012 BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VIJAYAPURA, AND AWARD THE COMPENATION OF RS.10,50,000/- WITH 18% INTEREST. IN MFA NO. 200059/2018: BETWEEN: HASANSAB S/O RAJESAB NADAF, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O DEVAR-HIPPARRAGI, TQ. SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA, NOW RESIDING AT IBRAHIMPUR PETH, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 AND: 1. MAHAMMADHANIF S/O MAHAMMADGOUSE DAFEDAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O WATER GANJI DARBAR GALLI, BAGALAKOT CROSS ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. 2. THE DEPUTY MANAGER LEGAL, FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PASABENA, NO.18/1 (OLD NO.125/A), IIIRD FLOOR, ‘E’ ZONE BUILDING, ASHOKA PILLAR ROAD, JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 011. 3. VENKANNA S/O RAMAPPA KORADDI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SAI NIVAS, SRI DESHPANDE NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VINAYAK APTE, ADVOCATE, FOR R1; SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE, FOR R2; R3 - SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1601/2012 BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT VIJAYAPURA AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION OF RS.10,50,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/owner of vehicle and respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 2. These appeals are by the petitioners/claimants directed against the common judgment and award dated 27.09.2017 passed in their respective claim petitions in MVC Nos.1601 of 2012 and 1602 of 2012, by the Member, MACT-IV & III Addl. District Judge, Vijayapura, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 18.05.2012 at about 7.15 p.m., on Devar Hipparagi Road, near Mallayya Temple, when Hasansab, the petitioner in MVC No.1601/2012 (appellant in MFA No.200059/2018) was riding the motorcycle bearing No.KA-29/R-608 with one Parasuram, the petitioner in MVC No.1602/2012 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 (appellant in MFA No.200060/2018), as a pillion rider, an Innova Car bearing No.KA-25/N-6107 came from opposite direction and dashed against a motorcycle, resulting in the petitioners falling down from the bike and sustaining injuries. After the accident, the petitioners were taken to the PHC at Devar Hipparagi and thereafter to BLDE Hospital, Vijayapura for treatment. In the meanwhile, the Devara Hipparagi Police registered a case in Crime No.62/2012 and launched the investigation. In the complaint filed by the pillion rider Parasuram, he had mentioned the registration number of the Innova Car and the FIR was registered at 8.30 p.m. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners contended that they had sustained fractures and such other injuries as mentioned in the Wound Certificate at Exs.P3 and P7 and therefore, claiming that they were aged 24 years and 25 years respectively at the time of accident, had sought just and reasonable compensation from the owner and insurer of the Innova Car. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 4. The petitions were opposed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5. The respondent No.1, the owner of the Innova Car contended that the alleged accident, if any, had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle. The criminal case was registered at the instance of both the injured against the driver of the Car. It was alleged that on the date of the accident, the rider of the motorcycle was riding the same in high speed and negligent manner without the headlight to his motorcycle, since, it was dark. Therefore, the rider was unable to see the oncoming vehicle and he was unable to control the vehicle and slipped from the motorcycle and sustained the injuries. Therefore, it was contended that the petitioner cannot blame respondent No.1 for any negligence. Apart from that the accident was denied and the compensation claimed was termed as highly exorbitant and imaginary. 6. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company took up similar contentions and contended that the petitioners - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 colluding with the Police have falsely implicated the Innova Car and in fact, there was no such accident which had taken place. It was contended that the petitioners had sustained the injuries on their own and they had never met with any accident involving the Car owned by respondent No.1. Inter alia, it also contended that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by the respondent No.1. 7. Based on the contentions of both the parties, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues, clubbed both the petitions and a common evidence was led. The petitioners were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and the Doctors, who assessed the disability, were examined as PWs.3 and 4 and Exs.P1 to 13 were marked in evidence. The official of the respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and two witnesses were examined on their behalf as RWs.2 and 3. Documents at Exs.R1 to 5 were marked in evidence. 8. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Hospital - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 Records show that it was fall from bike and that the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report shows that there were no damages to the two-wheeler of the petitioners. On that ground, the Tribunal held that the involvement of the Innova Car owned by respondent No.1 and insured by Respondent No.2 is doubtful and as such, the accident itself is doubtful. Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 9. On appeals being admitted, the Tribunal Records have been secured and the submissions by both the sides are heard. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Exs.P3 and P7 are the Wound Certificates of Hasansab and Parasuram respectively. Ex.P3 shows that petitioner was examined by a Medical Officer at BLDE Hospital, Vijayapura at 8.20 p.m. The petitioner Parasuram was examined at 7.25 p.m. It is contended that after the said Parasuram was examined at PHC of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 Devar Hipparagi on the way to BLDE Hospital, he lodged the complaint. It is pointed out that the hospital records of BLDE Hospital shows that petitioner Parasuram was examined for the first time at 9 p.m. Therefore, he contends that when the FIR came to be registered at 8.30 p.m. at Devar Hipparagi Police Station, wherein, the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident was categorically mentioned, it was not open for the Tribunal to disbelieve the same and hold that there was no such accident. He further submitted that though there was no damage to the motorcycle, the MVI Report at Ex.P4 would show that there was damage to the Innova Car and the front windscreen glass was damaged. This damage to the vehicle was not explained by respondent No.1. Therefore, he contends that these circumstances clearly establish that the Tribunal erred in holding that there was no such accident involving the Innova car. On these grounds, he seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned judgments. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submit that his vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and even then it has been implicated in the case. However, he is unable to substantiate as to how the actual happening of the accident came to his knowledge as mentioned in the para 8 of the written statement. In other respects, he defends the impugned judgment and state that there is no reason to interfere in the same. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company would submit that the case sheet of the BLDE Hospital produced at Ex.R4 concerning the petitioner Parasuram unequivocally mention that the history of the injuries were mentioned to be fall from the motorcycle. Even the MLC extract, also mention the same. The entire records pertaining to the petitioners as maintained at BLDE hospital mentioned that it was a fall from the bike. When there is no mention of the involvement of the Innova car owned by respondent - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 No.1 and insured by respondent No.2, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that there was no such accident which had occurred. Therefore, he submits that there is no need for any interference by this Court and the records show that there was no such accident. 13. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal heavily relied upon the testimony of the RW3, the records of the BLDE Hospital, Vijayapura and came to conclusion that it was fall from the bike. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal nowhere records the damages sustained to the Innova car of the respondent. However, it records that there were no damages to the motorcycle. 14. A careful perusal of the records would show that as per the complaint/FIR produced at Ex.P1, the accident had taken place at 7.15 p.m. Complaint was received by the police station at 20.30 hours. Obviously, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 the petitioner Parasuram had gone to the hospital and lodged the complaint to the police. 15. The police conducted the spot mahajar at about 9.00 a.m. on 19.05.2012. Both the vehicles, which were involved in the accident were found at the spot. Both these vehicles were subjected to an inspection by the concerned motor vehicle inspector and he examined them on 21.05.2012. The report at Ex.P4 showed that the Innova car had the front windscreen glass damaged, but there were no damages found on the motorcycle. 16. After completing the investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the Innova car. It is pertinent to note that the entire police records are not available. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the police are not produced by either of the parties. However, the matter is agitated only on the basis of the records of the hospital. 17. The Ex.P4 the wound certificate issued by the BLDE Hospital in respect of the petitioner Hasansab (rider - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 of the motorcycle), would show that he was examined at 8.20 p.m. and he reported there with the history of a fall from the motorcycle. He was accompanied by one Riyaz. The Ex.P7 the wound certificate of Parasuram would show that he was first examined at PHC Devar Hippargi at 7.25 p.m. and since there were many grievous injuries, he was referred to higher facility. In this wound certificate, there is no mention about the fall from the bike, but it is stated as RTA. 18. The photocopy of the medico-legal register maintained by BLDE Hospital, though was produced is not marked. Since it is an authenticated copy of the MLC register, the same is perused and it is noted that Hasansab was examined at 8.20 p.m. and he was brought by one Riyaz Soudagar. He had stated that he had sustained injuries by fall from motorcycle accident at about 6.30 p.m. near Devara Hipparigi. Thereafter, at about 9.00 p.m., the petitioner Parasuram was examined and he also stated that it was a history of a fall from the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 motorcycle at about 6.30 p.m. near Devara Hippargi. The Ex.R4, which is the case sheet of the BLDE Hospital, show that Parasuram was examined and it was noted that he reported with a motorcycle accident and fall at about 6.30 p.m. near Devara Hippargi. The case sheet does not mention the time of the examination. 19. The Ex.R5 is the case sheet of Hasansab. It also records an exactly similar history. In the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 it is elicited that the accident had taken place at about 7.00 p.m. and except the suggestion that there was no such accident involving the Innova car, nothing else is elicited from him. It is pertinent to note that the cross-examination of the PW2 show that he denies that since it was a self fall from the bike, he did not lodge the FIR immediately. 20. The RW1 who is the owner of the vehicle has reiterated the contentions taken up by him in the written statement. It is pertinent to note that in the entire affidavit evidence of RW1, there is no explanation as to - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 how there was damage to the windscreen of the Innova car. He admits in the cross-examination that the police have filed the charge sheet against his driver. 21. The RW3 is the medical officer from the BLDE Hospital. He states that he has mentioned in the case sheet as well as the medico-legal register the history as mentioned by the petitioners. He does not refer to Riyaz. 22. The above evidence on record shows that there is no delay in filing the complaint. The vehicles were found at the spot till next day morning when spot mahazar was conducted. Within three days, the motor vehicle inspector inspected and found that there was damage on the Innova car. Thereafter, the police complete the investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of the Innova car and he pleads guilty before the Criminal Court. The written statement of the respondent No.1 explained in detail the manner in which the accident had occurred. It is in the form of an eyewitness account. Even then, either the written statement or the testimony of the RW1 does not - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 explain how the windscreen of the Innova car was damaged. Complaint at Ex.P1 registered by the Devar Hippargi police at 8.30 p.m. mentioned that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the Innova car driver and subsequently, the hospital records of the BLDE Hospital saying that it was an accident by fall; the conclusion that has to be reached is obviously the one which emanated with the spontaneity. The FIR registered prior to the petitioners going to the BLDE Hospital, having the spontaneity, and thereafter, the same being investigated by the police and finding truth in it, they filing the charge sheet against the Innova car driver will have to be accepted as a more reliable fact. Therefore, an error that might have been caused by the hospital authorities cannot be a ground to reject the investigation done by the investigating officer. More so, when there is no allegation of nexus between the petitioners and the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 having appeared and denied the involvement, is unable to explain the damage occurred to the car. Therefore, the rule of preponderance of - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 probability requires that the statement made by Parasuram before the police in Ex.P1, which came into existence much prior to he was taken to BLDE Hospital at Vijayapura and such statement being investigated by the police, is to be relied. The weight of the statement made by petitioners before the police and such statement having investigated by the police will gain higher standard of evidence than the one which was recorded by the hospital authorities. 23. It is relevant to note that in a common parlance, the hospital authorities might have asked how they sustained the injury and they might have stated that they had fallen from the motorcycle. The hospital authorities were not required to mention the details of the accident in the MLC records. The interpretation of the MLC records is possible in both the ways. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2551 MFA No. 200060 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 200059 of 2018 24. The Tribunal has not assessed the compensation amount. Both the petitioners had sustained injuries. In that view of the matter, the matter needs to be remanded for the purpose of assessment of the compensation amount. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeals are allowed. The finding of the Tribunal that there was no such accident involving the Innova car owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for assessment of the compensation amount entitled by the petitioners and disposal in accordance with law. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SBS,SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56 CT: AK