- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34930 MFA No. 2121 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2121 OF 2020(MV-I) BETWEEN: LEGAL MANAGER HDFC ERGO GIC LTD 1ST FLOOR, 165-166 BACKBAY RECLAMATION, H.T PAREKH MARG CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI -400 020 NOW REP BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER HDFC ERGO GIC. LTD 2ND FLOOR, NO.25/1 BUILDING NO.2 SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING M.G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VINOD KUMAR S/O JAYASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O GAVIYAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK 2. M.R CHIKKEGOWDA S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT MALLAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBLI, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34930 MFA No. 2121 of 2020 GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH N.R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PATEL D KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 01/08/2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.25.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1409/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, TUMKUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,79,600/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1409/2015 dated 25.10.2019 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Tumkur (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant-injured and awarded compensation of Rs.1,79,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34930 MFA No. 2121 of 2020 2. The brief facts of the case are, on 15.04.2015 at about 06:30 p.m., when the claimant-Vinod Kumar along with his friends Gangaraju and Mohan Kumar were proceeding on the left side of the road near Kadaba K.G. Temple Road at Yallachihalli Village in Gubbi Taluk, respondent No.2 herein being the rider of TVS Star City Sports bike bearing registration No.KA-02/HF-8639 came from Mallenahalli towards K.G. Temple by riding his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant from behind. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his right hand humerus and also sustained multiple injuries on all over his body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Siddartha Medical College and Hospital, Heggere. Thereafter, on 22.04.2015, Gangaraju lodged a complaint before the Gubbi Police Station against the rider of the motorcycle. 3. On the strength of the said complaint, FIR was registered against the rider of the motorcycle in Crime No.95/2015 dated 22.04.2015. Subsequently, the said Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle. Later, a claim petition was filed by the claimant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34930 MFA No. 2121 of 2020 before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries he sustained in the accident. 4. The Tribunal, on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition as stated supra. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel Sri B. Pradeep for the appellant and learned counsel Sri Harish N.R. for Sri Patel D. Karegowda for respondent No.1. 6. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company primarily contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred by not considering the aspect that a frivolous petition was filed by the claimant for unlawful gain. According to him, immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Siddartha Medical College and Hospital, Heggere and thereafter took treatment at District Government Hospital, Tumkur. The MLC register-Ex.R1 clearly depicts that the claimant was sustained injuries due to "fall from 2 wheeler on 15.04.2015 around 7:30 p.m. at Doddakurala gate". Subsequently, after lapse of 7 days i.e., on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34930 MFA No. 2121 of 2020 22.04.2015, a complaint was lodged by the complainant. However, the Police registered the FIR and laid charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle at the instance of the claimant. 7. He further contended that in order to examine the author of Ex.R1, the Insurance Company made its best efforts before the Tribunal. Despite summons was served to him, he remained absent before the Tribunal. As such, the Tribunal issued bailable warrant against him. However, the said bailable warrant was unexecuted by the jurisdictional Police. Hence, there was no opportunity to examine the author of Ex.R1. Nevertheless, Ex.R1 is the public document, evidentiary value can be attached to the same. He also contended that the complainant who accompanied the claimant to the Hospital and gave the history of accident has not been examined before the Tribunal. As such, according to the learned counsel, on careful examination of contents of Ex.R1 coupled with delay in lodging the complaint clearly establish that the accident was caused due to 'fall from bike' and not as claimed by the claimant. These aspects of the matter are not properly appreciated by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34930 MFA No. 2121 of 2020 the Tribunal and awarded compensation. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant by supporting the impugned judgment and award vehemently contended that no evidentiary value can be attached to Ex.R1 for the reason that neither its author has been examined before the Tribunal nor there is a seal or signature of the author of Ex.R1. Moreover, there is a clear admission by RW.1-officer of the Insurance Company to the effect that there is no seal or signature is forthcoming in Ex.R1. He further contends that the Insurance Company has not challenged the charge sheet filed against the rider of motorcycle as per RW.1. Accordingly, he submits that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated this aspect and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. He further contends that the Tribunal has grossly erred by awarding meager compensation without taking into consideration the income, age and avocation of the claimant. He also further contended that mere delay of 7 days in lodging the complaint itself will not take away the case. With these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34930 MFA No. 2121 of 2020 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and documents made available before this Court. 10. As could be gathered from records, the accident in question that occurred on 15.04.2015 at about 6:30 p.m. is not in dispute. In the accident, even according to the complainant and the claimant, the claimant has sustained some injuries. As such, immediately after the accident, the complainant being the friend of claimant, shifted the claimant to Siddartha Medical College and Hospital, Heggere and thereafter took treatment at District Government Hospital, Tumkur. 11. On careful examination of Ex.R1-MLC Extract, the same depicts that the claimant has sustained injuries due to "fall from 2 wheeler on 15.04.2015 around 7:30 p.m. at Doddakurala gate" and the said MLC extract has been signed by Doctor-Sumanth. Strangely, after 7 days, the complaint-Ex.P2 was lodged by claimant's friend-Gangaraju who accompanied the injured to the Hospital and stated the history of accident as "fall from 2 wheeler" . In Ex.P2 it is stated by the complainant - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34930 MFA No. 2121 of 2020 that while he along with claimant were walking on the road, the rider of the motorcycle dashed the claimant. The said complainant has not been examined before the Tribunal by the claimant. Moreover, there is a inordinate delay of 7 days in lodging the complaint by the complainant. The contents of Ex.P2 and Ex.R1 are contrary to each other. As such, it is the bounded duty of the claimant to examine the complainant. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that no evidentiary value can be attached to Ex.R1 for the reason that the same does not contain the seal or signature of the Doctor, the said documents reveal that the MLC extract belongs to District Government Hospital, Tumkur and the said document is countersigned by Doctor-Sumanth. Moreover, Ex.R1 being the public document, reliance could be placed on the said document. 12. Additionally, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Insurance Company has made its best efforts to examine the author of Ex.R1 before the Tribunal. After repeated summons were issued by the Tribunal, bailable warrant was also issued to the said witness, however, the said - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34930 MFA No. 2121 of 2020 bailable warrant remained unexecuted. In such circumstances, solely on the ground that the author of the said document was not examined before the Tribunal, Ex.R1 cannot be discarded. 13. On careful examination of Ex.R1 coupled with Ex.P2 and P1, a doubt arises in the mind of this Court that if really the accident is caused as narrated by the claimant or by his friend-complainant, nothing prevented the complainant to lodge the complaint immediately after the accident or the following day, since he accompanied the claimant to the Hospital and gave the history of accident. The complaint-Ex.P2 and Ex.R1 are contrary documents and to ascertain the truth of Ex.P2, the claimant has failed to examine the complainant. Mere filing of the charge sheet itself cannot be believed for the purpose of entertaining claim petition under Motor Accident Claims. In the instant case, on examination of all the above documents, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident was taken place in the manner which the claimant claimed in the claim petition and in his evidence and the Tribunal has erred in granting compensation to the claimant. Hence, interference with the impugned judgment and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34930 MFA No. 2121 of 2020 award passed by the Tribunal is called for. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 25.10.2019 passed in MVC No.1409/2015 by the Court of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Tumkur is set-aside. The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant- Insurance Company through digital mode. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30