- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35577 MFA No. 6467 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6467 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: KHALEEL SAB S/O LATE DASTAGIR SAB, CARPENTER, R/O OPP: VENKATESHWARA TALKIES, NEW SANTHE MAIDANA, CHITRADURGA CITY-577 501. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KIRAN. S S/O SANGAMESH, MAJOR, R.C.OWNER OF THE YAMAHA MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-16/R-1591, R/O JALIKATTE SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 501. 2. THE BRANCH MANGER THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NO.1 & 2, 1ST FLOOR, MAGANUR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, B.D.ROAD, CHITRADURGA CITY-577 501. 3. KHAZA HUSSAIN S/O MAHAROOF BASHA, MAJOR, BEHIND ANAJANEYA TEMPLE, CHELUGUDDA, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA CITY-577 501. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35577 MFA No. 6467 of 2017 (BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, V/O DTD: 20.01.2023 NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.169/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIIVL JUDGE, MACT-IV, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 01.07.2026 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 09.03.2017 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and IV MACT, Chitrdurga, in MVC No.169 of 2015. 2. The injured claimant met with an accident on 13.10.2014 and filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.10,85,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant in which it is mainly contended that on 13.10.2014 while he was returning from Azam Masjid after - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35577 MFA No. 6467 of 2017 namaz, the rider of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-16-R-1591 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed him from behind. As a result, he sustained injuries and taken to Basaveshwara Hospital, Chitradurga. But the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that there was delay of 17 days in filing the complaint and not considered the documents filed by the claimant under Exhibit P1 to Exhibit to Exhibit P14. It is contended that, at the time of the accident, driver of the offending vehicle did not stop the motorcycle and he ran away from the spot. As such, he could not give complaint immediately after the accident and he explained the reasons for the delay. It is further contended that he sustained fracture in the accident and also took treatment as an inpatient for a considerable period of time. He produced medical bills and MLC extract. In the MLC extract, it was stated that he sustained injuries due to the involvement of the motorcycle, but the Tribunal without considering all these material facts, dismissed the claim petition. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35577 MFA No. 6467 of 2017 5. The petitioner was working as a carpenter and undertaken contract work with 9 to 10 labourers and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Respondent No.1, after issuance of the notice, remained ex-parte. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed their separate objections. Respondent No.2 stated that liability is subject to valid and effective driving licence of driver of vehicle at the time of alleged accident, RC, FC and permit in the name of insured at the time of accident. It is further stated that the accident is not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-16-A-1591, but it is due to negligent walking of the petitioner-claimant and without hearing the horn sound of the motor cycle, he himself came to the centre road. As there was drizzling, he lost balance and slipped on the road. It is further stated that the driver of motor cycle did not have valid driving licence to drive particular class of vehicle, driver has violated provisions of M.V. Act and Rules and hence, they are not liable to pay compensation. 6. Respondent No.3, in his objections, stated that he sold motor cycle in favour of respondent-1, but the policy was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35577 MFA No. 6467 of 2017 continued in his name on the date of accident. The policy was valid from 03.01.2014 to 02.01.2015, and due to oversight, the policy was not transferred in the name of respondent.1. 7. Admittedly, there was 17 days delay in lodging the complaint. The delay was explained by the petitioner-claimant that, after getting information from Abdullah about the rider, who caused accident, he lodged complaint. The tribunal observed that the explanation given by the petitioner regarding ascertaining the vehicle number and its rider is not satisfactory explanation as it is the duty of the police but not the victim. Though he took treatment in Basaveshwara Hospital from 13.10.2014 to 15.10.2014, he has not taken any treatment till getting disability certificate on 18.02.2016, i.e. after one year four months from the date of discharge. Petitioner has stated that he informed to the doctor that he sustained injuries in accident and it was also mentioned in Exhibit P5 wound certificate. But no information was given to the police by the hospital authorities. Though petitioner was in the home from 15.10.2014 till 18.02.2016, he has not informed about the accident. As per Exhibit P1 complaint, one Chandpeer took the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35577 MFA No. 6467 of 2017 petitioner to the hospital after the accident. But the petitioner has not examined Chandpeer or Abdullah on his behalf, though they are material witnesses. It is stated that motorcyclist ran away from the spot and Chandpeer and others assisted him for hospitalisation. When Chandpeer and others were at the spot, why they have not given the number, is not mentioned. And, thus it was said that the delay of 17 days in filing the complaint is not explained satisfactorily and later they have implicate the offending vehicle. It was further observed by the Tribunal that immediately after the accident, the petitioner should have taken treatment in a government hospital, but he took treatment in a private hospital. He has not underwent any surgery, but stated that, as he is poor, he could not undergo surgery. 8. The Tribunal, considering all these aspects, rightly observed that petitioner failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. It is for the petitioner to establish the manner of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle and rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, but, he failed to do so, and he gave - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35577 MFA No. 6467 of 2017 complaint after 17 days without any justifiable cause. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated all the facts and dismissed the application. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the of order of the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54