- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34298 MFA No. 4002 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4002 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: LOHITH @ LOHITH KUMAR T S S/O SOMASHEKAR @ SOMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, AND DISTRICT-577 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., SULTANAS, K.T.STREET, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., CRESENT COURT, K.M.ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. 3. KANTHARAJU S/O LAKSHMANARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577 101. 4. P.H. GIRISH S/O HANUMANTHARAJU, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34298 MFA No. 4002 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O PARVATHIPURA, RAMPURA POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577 101. 5. LOKESH RAJ URS S/O HONNARAJU T.H., MAJOR, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY MRS. MAMATHA .S. SHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4, R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.203/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AMACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 02.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34298 MFA No. 4002 of 2019 CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 30.11.2018 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Bengluru, in MVC No.203 of 2017. 2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The injured claimant met with an accident on 05.10.2016, and filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there was delay in filing the complaint and also on that the petitioner failed to prove date of accident and rash and negligence of the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-18/B-9798. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant in which it is mainly contended that there is no dispute regarding accident and injury sustained by the claimant in the accident. The injured could not file complaint immediately after the accident as he took treatment - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34298 MFA No. 4002 of 2019 as an inpatient and later, he was taking rest and could not approach the police in time and the delay is properly explained. It is contended that n Exhibit P4 and Exhibit P8, wound certificate and discharge summary issued by NDRK Hospital, it was specifically mentioned that he was admitted in the hospital with history of RTA on 05.10.2010 and clearly stated that accident occurred on 05.10.2016 and not on 08.10.2016. Even in MV accident report, the date of accident is shown as 05.10.2016. But the intimation sent by the hospital authority to the concerned police is on 08.10.2016. Insurance company has not challenged the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further contended by the claimant that PW2 also stated that claimant sustained injuries and admitted with the history of RTA from 05.10.2016 to 11.10.2016 and sustained disability by 17% of the right lower limb and he requires future medical expenses for removal of implants. It is also contended that he was aged 26 years and doing agricultural work and business. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34298 MFA No. 4002 of 2019 5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 6. The manner of accident shows that on 05.10.2016, while the petitioner was proceeding on his TVS Apache motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-18/EE-0231 on Magadi tank bund road, Magadi village, Chikkamagaluru Taluk, the 1st respondent - driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA-18/B-9798 belonging to 2nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle from back side. As a result, he sustained closed fracture of both bones of right leg and grievous injuries to other parts of the body. The petitioner was shifted to N.D.R.K Hospital, Hassan. He took treatment as inpatient from 05.10.2016 to 11.10.2016 and also underwent surgery on 06.10.2016 and incurred Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner was driver and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. 7. In spite of service of notice, respondents No.1, 2 and 4 remained absent and therefore, they were set ex-parte. Respondent No.3 and respondent No.5 i.e. insurance companies of both the vehicles filed counters. Respondent No.3-insurance company, in their counter, denied the accident - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34298 MFA No. 4002 of 2019 and also the injuries sustained by the petitioner due to the rash and negligence of the driving of the 1st respondent. It is further stated that petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., rider, owner and insurer of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 18/EE-0231. There is delay of 33 days in reporting the accident to the police. It is also stated that insured and the concerned Police have not informed about accident to the Insurance Company and they have failed to forward the relevant documents for verification by the Insurance Company and thus, failed to comply the statutory requirements. Respondent No.5- insurance company also reiterated the above contentions in its statement. 8. Exhibit P3 complaint is given on 08.11.2016 though accident occurred on 05.10.2016. Rural police visited the place of accident on 09.11.2016, conducted spot Mahazar under Exhibit P6 and recovered both the vehicles and subjected them for inspection before IMV inspector. In Exhibit P5-IMV report, it is stated that accident was not due to mechanical defect and charge sheet is filed against the 1st respondent. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34298 MFA No. 4002 of 2019 9. It is suggested to PW-1 that he has sustained only simple injuries in a motor vehicle accident. It is also suggested to PW-2 that the petitioner has taken treatment at N.D.R.K Hospital, Hassan and came to M.G Hospital, Chikkamagaluru only for the purpose of obtaining the disability certificate and 17% disability is in respect of right lower limb. The fractures sustained by the petitioner is not seriously disputed. The Tribunal observed that respondent Nos.3 and 5 not only denied the accident but also involvement of first respondent and car bearing Reg.No.KA-18/B-9798 and the manner of accident. It is further stated that petitioner might have sustained injuries from other sources but not due to the accident in question. It is for the petitioner to prove that he sustained several injuries in RTA on 05.10.2016 at about 06.30 p.m. on Mangadi tank bund road due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-18/B-9798. 10. Admittedly, there is delay of 33 days in filing the complaint. As per the medical records Exhibits P4, P8 to P11, P13 and P14, the petitioner was brought to N.D.R.K Hospital, Hassan for treatment and therefore he has taken treatment - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34298 MFA No. 4002 of 2019 from 5.10.2016 to 11.10.2016 as an inpatient and also undergone operation on 6.10.2016. Exhibit P4 is the wound certificate. As per the said document and other medical documents, the petitioner was brought to N.D.R.K Hospital, Hassan only on 8.10.2016 for treatment and one Dr.K.J.Nagaraju attached to N.D.R.K Hospital, Hassan examined the petitioner only on 08.10.2016 at about 11.00 a.m. for the first time. It clearly shows that the date of accident is not on 05.10.2016, but it is 08.10.2016. In Exhibit P4, there was overwriting in respect of the exact date of the accident. 11. As per the MLC memo, the N.D.R.K Hospital authorities have informed K.R.Puram Police station, Hassan, that accident occurred on 08.10.2016 and they received intimation on the same day. The petitioner could have lodged the complaint even after discharge from the Hospital, but he has failed to do so. They have not examined the doctor who corrected the date of accident. the petitioner also not examined the Medical Officer who examined him at the earliest point of time at N.D.R.K Hospital, Hassan or the persons who took him to N.D.R.K Hospital, Hassan or the Investigating - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34298 MFA No. 4002 of 2019 Officer who conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet. Thus adverse inference was taken against the petitioner for withholding the material witnesses being examined before the Court. 12. It is further observed that the distance between place of accident and M.G Hospital, Chikkamagaluru and Rural Police Station, Chikkamagaluru is within 12 kms, but petitioner was taken to N.D.R.K Hospital, Hassan, which is at a distance of 60 km. and far away from the place of accident and no reasons are assigned. The accident was taken place on 05.10.2016 at 06.30 p.m. But complaint under Exhibit P3 was lodged only on 08.11.2016 at 05.00 p.m. Petitioner has taken treatment at N.D.R.K Hospital, Hassan on 08.10.2016 and the police visited the place of accident on 09.11.2016 and conducted spot mahazar and recovered vehicles. Thus, there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and accordingly, it was held that vehicle was falsely implicated to claim compensation. Delay is not properly explained. The petitioner was admitted in N.D.R.K Hospital, Hassan on 08.10.2016. But it was stated that he took treatment as an inpatient from - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34298 MFA No. 4002 of 2019 05.10.2016 to 11.10.2016. He has not given any complaint from 05.10.2016 to 08.10.2016 and also not given after discharge on 11.10.2016. There is an inordinate delay of 33 days and there are material discrepancies regarding the date of accident, time of accident and the conduct of the petitioner in not taking any treatment in a nearby hospital immediately after the accident and also the fact that the first respondent is the resident of this village. The Tribunal further observed that the chances of implicating the first respondent cannot be ruled out. The driving licence of R1 is valid till 08.12.2029, but he was not charge sheeted for contravention of Section 3 punishable under Section 181 of MV Act. The Tribunal rightly considered all the aspects and held that the petitioner failed to prove the exact date of accident and also the rash and negligent driving of car bearing Reg.No.KA-18/B-9798 and dismissed the application. 13. The Tribunal is duty bound to grant compensation to victims of accident in both death and injury cases and it is also their duty to verify as to whether it is a case of implication of the vehicle, as it is a clear case of implication of the vehicle, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34298 MFA No. 4002 of 2019 this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned award of the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52