- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28277 MFA No. 7387 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7387 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: ASHOK JADAV @ ASHOK KUMAR S/O SHANKAR RAO AGED 33 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTER R/O 3RD MAIN, 9TH CROSS, NEAR SRI ANJANEYA TEMPLE VINOBANAGAR DAVANAGERE-577 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PARAPPASWAMY S/O PARAMESHWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS DRIVER-CUM-OWNER OF AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING NO.KA-17/A-7163 R/O 4TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS YALLAMMANAGAR DAVANAGERE-577 001. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MELAGIRI PLAZA, MCC B BLOCK DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD DAVANAGERE-577 001. …RESPONDENTS R Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28277 MFA No. 7387 of 2014 (BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD:28.07.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.7.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.677/2013 ON THE FILE OF TH 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-5, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 4.06.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 17.07.2014 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and V Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Davanagere, in MVC No.677 of 2013. 2. The injured claimant, aged 32 years, met with an accident on 06.03.2013, and filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the claim application with costs of Rs.1,500/- to each of the respondents. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant in which it is mainly contended that on 06.03.2013, while he was travelling in an auto rickshaw - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28277 MFA No. 7387 of 2014 bearing No.KA-17/A-7163 near the house of Dr. Upasi, MCC ‘A’ Block, Davanagere, respondent No.1-driver of the auto rickshaw, driven it in rash and negligent manner and toppled down. As a result, the claimant sustained fracture injuries. Immediately, he was admitted to the hospital and took treatment as an inpatient from 06.03.2013 to 18.03.2013. He filed Exhibit P1 to P7 - police records to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto rickshaw and also Exhibits P8 to P59 - medical records to prove his injuries. Exhibit P1 - FIR and Exhibit P2 - complaint goes to show that driver has driven the vehicle in rash and negligence manner, due to which, auto rickshaw toppled down and the claimant sustained injuries. Police after the investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the auto. It is contended that as per the IMV report, there is no damage found on the offending vehicle but it was seized after lapse of three months. The Tribunal relied upon MLC extract and discharge card, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the claimant sustained injuries due to the accident while travelling in auto rickshaw. Therefore, if the Tribunal considered the contents of these documents for one purpose, cannot refuse to consider the same documents for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28277 MFA No. 7387 of 2014 other purpose and it ought to have considered the evidentiary value of the documents in its entirety. It is further contended that though the place of accident recorded in the documents is different, but the fact remains that on that particular day, the claimant sustained injuries due to the accident. There is possibility of giving wrong information by the injured and his relatives due to shock. But the said fact was not considered by the tribunal. Soon after the appellant was admitted, it is for the hospital authorities to send information to the concerned police regarding the accident and it is for police to register the case. If at all, the police took up the investigation immediately after receipt of information from the hospital authorities, the truth would come out. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 4. Heard the arguments of Learned counsel for both sides. 5. The petitioner was examined himself as P.W.1 and he examined the doctor as P.W.2. respondent No.1 was examined as R.W.1 and Respondent-insurance company examined its officer as R.W.2 and also marked Exhibits R1 to R5. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28277 MFA No. 7387 of 2014 6. Notice was served upon respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2-insurance company, in their counter, stated that no accident took place as alleged by the petitioner-claimant on that particular day and auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-17/A-7163 was not at all involved in the accident. In fact, petitioner by falling somewhere else, filed the false petition. Respondent No.1 has valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. 7. In the counter filed by respondent No.1, he stated that there was delay in filing the complaint and no reasons were assigned for the delay. Auto rickshaw was not involved in the accident, and in collusion with the police, they implicated the vehicle. There is delay of three months in filing the complaint and no plausible explanation was offered by the petitioner for filing the complaint at a belated point of time. The place of accident is entirely different from the place shown in Exhibit R5/MLC report. Exhibit R5-MLC register extract falsifies the case of the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28277 MFA No. 7387 of 2014 8. The Tribunal relied upon a citation of this Court in the case of M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. B.C. Kumar & Another reported in ILR 2010 Kar. 2921, wherein it was stated as follows: “MACT’s are constituted not only to allow the claim petitions which are genuine in nature but at the same time the great responsibility on the part of the claims Tribunal to ensure that no false claims are allowed by it.” 9. In the claim petition, the place of accident is shown as near the house of Dr. Upasi, MCC ‘A’ Block, Davanagere. Exhibit P9 is the discharge summary in which it was shown as near Vinayak Hotel, P.J. Extension, Davanagere. In Exhibit R5 - MLC register extract, it was shown that auto rickshaw toppled near Vinayaka hotel/ Hospital, P. J. Extension, Davanagere. It is further stated that as per the evidence of R.W.3, injured was conscious, when he was brought to the hospital and his wife accompanied him. It is stated that accident occurred on 06.03.2013 at 01.30 p.m. near Vinayaka Hotel/Hospital P. J. Extension, Davanagere, as per the medical records and the petitioner is resident of Davanagere from past 20 years. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that he mentioned the place - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28277 MFA No. 7387 of 2014 of accident by mistake erroneously. It is further observed by the Tribunal that petitioner did not examine any of the independent witnesses. Exhibit P2 is the complaint given by P.W.1. It was received by the police on 10.06.2013 at 6.10 p.m. It shows that it was given after three months. The petitioner mentioned that he was not aware of the name of the driver, his address and auto number, and as such, he could not give the complaint. But in the complaint, he has not stated as to how he got those details. In his evidence, he stated that he came to know about the details from one police constable of traffic police station. When he was admitted in the hospital at 8.00 p.m. on the day of accident, he gave information to the police about the occurrence of the accident. Exhibit R5 - MLC Register Extract shows that MLC information was sent by hospital to the police at 03.05 p.m. on the same day. But the police has not registered the case for the reasons best known to them. It is further observed by the Tribunal that in Exhibit P6, two independent witnesses were shown, but the petitioner has not examined any of them to prove the involvement of the vehicle. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28277 MFA No. 7387 of 2014 10. Investigating officer without verifying the medical records filed charge sheet. As per Exhibit P4, there was no damage to the auto rickshaw. If at all the auto rickshaw was toppled, it could have been damaged. The driver of the auto also not sustained any injuries. The Tribunal observed that investigating officer without any investigation, only with a view to protect the injured might have filed charge sheet against the auto driver. As such, it cannot be relied upon. The Tribunal considered the other aspects on record and assessed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, but dismissed application. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has mainly contended that there is no dispute regarding the accident. Merely because the place of accident is mentioned differently in medical records and the claim petition, the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the application. The driver and the insurance company disputed the accident itself and also involvement of the auto rickshaw and they mainly contended that the appellant-petitioner fell down somewhere and implicated the said vehicle to gain wrongfully. Therefore, mere filing of charge sheet against the driver of the auto - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28277 MFA No. 7387 of 2014 rickshaw is not sufficient to presume that there was accident and petitioner met with an accident when the auto rickshaw toppled down. 12. In this case, the petitioner was admitted in the hospital immediately after the accident and filed medical records. The respondent filed Exhibit R5-MLC register extract. It is not his case that he was admitted in the hospital for a period of 3 months, but he kept quite without giving complaint for a period of 3 months and the reason for delay stated by him is that he could not get the details of the driver of auto rickshaw and its number, and he came to know about the said details from one police constable of traffic police station. The petitioner-claimant has also not mentioned the details specifically as to when he got those details from the police constable. The petitioner has not examined the driver of the auto rickshaw and there was no damage to the auto rickshaw and no injuries were sustained by the driver of the auto rickshaw. The place of accident in Exhibit R5-MLC and in the claim petition is totally different. The petitioner says that both - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28277 MFA No. 7387 of 2014 are one and the same. He has not stated the distance between both the places. 13. Admittedly, petitioner is the resident of Davanagere from past 20 years and therefore, it cannot be presumed that he has no idea about the place of accident or he got confused regarding the place of accident. Moreover, when he was admitted in the hospital, he was conscious and he was accompanied by his wife. The Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects. 14. This Court finds it reasonable to rely upon the judgment in the case of Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another reported in (2009) 1 KACJ 500, wherein it was held as follows: “ The experience has shown that this branch of law is slowly getting into the hands of unscrupulous people who are making a mockery of judicial process. A disturbing tread of unholy alliance among the police, the doctors, the lawyers and some times even the Insurance Company, to siphorn out the public money, and make an unlawful gain is fast emerging. It is also gaining respectability and persons who indulge in such practices are acclaimed as most successful in their respective profession. This is a - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28277 MFA No. 7387 of 2014 dangerous trend, if unchecked would undermine the judicial process. As the existing law is inadequate to check this malady, the Courts not only have to be careful in adjudicating such claims but also find ways to prevent such abuse They have to balance the interest of these accident victims and their legal heirs on one side, by giving them just compensation at the earliest, thus giving effect to the mandate of the parliament, and on the other hand, to see that the very process is not abused and exploited by a handful of persons, who have attained specialization in this field, to make personal gains at the cost of the exchequer. An onerous responsibility lies on the Courts. Therefore, it is imperative that a strong message is to be sent to the abusers of the judicial process to discourage them from indulging in such practices as well as the consequences of such abuse may result in foisting the liability exclusively on the insured- owner of the vehicle. (Para 16). 19. It is once again made clear that notwithstanding the vehicle of the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured as we have recorded a finding that it was not involved in the accident. Therefore, there is no third party liability on the part of the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants. This amount is awarded in order to see that in future such false defences are not filed before Court, judicial process is not abused. Therefore, it is only the 1st respondent/owner who is liable to pay the aforesaid amount. Ordered accordingly. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28277 MFA No. 7387 of 2014 15. No doubt, the cases filed under Motor Vehicles Act requires lenient consideration and it is also the duty of the Court to eliminate the false claims. When the petitioner appeared before the court, it is for him to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle and rash and negligence of the driver of the said vehicle. He has not given complaint for three months and not explained the delay properly. 16. Therefore, this Court finds that there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and award of the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63