- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35329 MFA No. 9014 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9014 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI MALLIKARJUNAPPA @ MALLIKARJUNA S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT SHANTHIGRAMA P.R.KOPPALU, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-56 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H C YOGESH S/O CHELUVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 5TH CROSS, VALLABAIA ROAD, HASSAN-571 467. 2. THE MANAGER THE UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD VENKATADRI BUILDING, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN CITY-571 467. MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.M.VENKATESH., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35329 MFA No. 9014 of 2013 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 13.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1814/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JDUGE, MEMBER, MACT-2, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.07.2026 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 A common order was passed by the Addl. District Judge and MACT II, Hassan (hereinafter referred as Tribunal) in MVC Nos.1814/2009, 1815/2009 and 1816/2009 dated 13.02.2013. 2. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the order of the tribunal in MVC No.1814/2009. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35329 MFA No. 9014 of 2013 4. The injured claimant met with an accident on 13.12.2008 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the application, against which the petitioner preferred this appeal. It is mainly contended that the Trial Court has taken wrong view regarding delay in lodging the complaint. Accident occurred on 13.12.2008. The complaint was given on 17.12.2008. The reasons assigned for the delay appears to be bona fide. The driver of the auto assured that he will settle the case, and the complaint need not be filed before the police station. But he did not turn up on the date of assurance. As such, they filed complaint. The reason for delay is explained properly. He relied upon a citation reported in BMTC vs. Pullaiah passed by the coordinate bench of this court reported in 2011 ACJ 2350, in which it was held that delay in lodging the FIR not fatal to the accident. It was observed by the tribunal that the time of accident mentioned in the complaint and wound certificate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35329 MFA No. 9014 of 2013 is not tallied. As per the complaint, the time of accident is 12.30 midnight, but in the wound certificate it is stated as 11.30 p.m., on 13.12.2008. There is no difference as to the date of accident. Only due to typographical error, there is difference in time of accident. Therefore, requested the court to set aside the order of the tribunal in MVC No.1814/2009. 5. The manner of accident shows that on 13.12.2008, while the petitioner was proceeding in autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-13-A-3803, at about 12.30 midnight., when autorikshaw reached near Gyarahalli gate on Hassan-Halebeedu road, the driver of the autorikshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and the autorikshaw capsized on the left side of the road. As a result, he sustained injuries. He took treatment as an inpatient. He sustained grevious injuries. He took treatment as an inpatient for one week and spent Rs.20,000/- towards - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35329 MFA No. 9014 of 2013 medical expenses. He was working as a teacher at Bagivalu Government Higher Primary School. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 filed a written statement stating that their vehicle was insured with respondent No.2, the policy was in force at the time of the accident. As such, the liability is to be fastened on the second respondent and requested the court to dismiss the petition against respondent No.1. 7. Further, in a written statement filed by respondent No.2, they stated that the driver of the offending vehicle driven it in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and he plied the vehicle beyond the territorial jurisdiction and it is in violation of the permit issued by RTO authorities and terms and conditions of the policy. 8. It is further stated that the accident occurred on 13.12.2008, but complaint was given on 17.12.2008 after lapse of 4 days, by colluding with the police. On that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35329 MFA No. 9014 of 2013 ground, it is to be dismissed and it is stated that in the complaint, that on 13.12.2008 at about 12.30 midnight accident occurred. But in the wound certificate issued by Sharada Nursing Home, it is stated that the petitioner sustained injuries at 11.30 p.m., on 13.12.2008. It is stated that as per the hospital records, in MVC No.1814/2009 on 14.12.2008 it was mentioned that there is history of road traffic accident on 13.12.2008 at 11.30 p.m., when he was hit by autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.13- A-3806 and he was brought by Yogesh driver and he was treated as inpatient from 14.12.2008 to 19.12.2008. It is stated that one of the injured gave complaint on 17.12.2008 at 1.00 p.m. He stated that as the auto driver promised to pay medical expenses, he has not filed complaint immediately. The doctor who treated the petitioner in Sharada Nursing Home, gave intimation to the police on 14.12.2008 itself, stating that petitioner and Peer Pasha were admitted in their hospital and there was a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35329 MFA No. 9014 of 2013 history of road traffic accident on 13.12.2008 at 11.30 p.m. 9. The Tribunal observed that when accident took place at 12.30 midnight, how can they sustain injuries by 11.30 p.m., itself. Moreover in the history, it is stated that they are hit by autorikshaw. But later they stated that while they were travelling in the autorikshaw it turned turtle. They have also examined PW3 doctor who admitted in the cross examination that the time and date of the accident is overwritten in the MLC register. Further it is submitted that the petitioner have not summoned the author of the MLC register. 10. The trial court rightly considered all the aspects and held that the petitioner failed to prove the accident. If the petitioner met with an accident it is for him to prove the manner of accident, involvement of the vehicle, rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. In this case, as the petitioner failed to prove the above - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35329 MFA No. 9014 of 2013 aspects, the trial court rightly considered all the aspects in detail and dismissed the application. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. In the result, appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of trial Court. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2