- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378892016 NC: 2026:KHC:42751 MFA No. 5883 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5883 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: ANNAPPA S/O BEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT #39, 1ST MAIN ROAD 12TH CROSS, KENGERI UPANAGAR BENGALURU-560 060. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRIDHAR D S., ADVOCATE, SRI. K.T. MADHU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVAKUMAR H K S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA.H.B. MAJOR, R/AT NO.53-47-2, 21ST MAIN ROAD, 21ST CROSS MARUTHI MANDIR MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 040. 2. M/S SBI GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD., LEGAL OFFICE, NO.3-1, GROUND 1ST FLOOR, RUKMINI TOWERS PLATFORM ROAD/RAILWAY APPROACH ROAD SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378892016 NC: 2026:KHC:42751 MFA No. 5883 of 2016 V/O DTD: 31.03.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 11.4.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.429/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT,XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.07.2026 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 11.04.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.429 of 2015. 2. The injured claimant met with an accident on 01.01.2015 and filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the application. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant in which it is mainly contended that - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378892016 NC: 2026:KHC:42751 MFA No. 5883 of 2016 the Tribunal erred in observing that Ex.P5, the evidence of R.W.1 as to the date of Wound Certificate, and Ex. P-7 the discharge summary, are contradictory to the admission of the petitioner to the hospital, as the said exhibits speak for admission to hospital on 2.1.2015, whereas R.W.1 stated that the petitioner was admitted on 1.1.2015. The Tribunal observed that the accident occurred late in the night at 10.30 p.m. But, as per the medical records, the accident in question was at 11.30 p.m. and as there is every possibility of the injured being taken to the hospital at about 12.00 in the midnight, therefore, the hospital records speak for the admission date as 2.1.2015. It is further contended that the Tribunal observed that the petitioner was taken to hospital at 1.15 A.M. on 2.1.2015. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in observing that the charge sheet is no ground to believe that the accused was solely responsible for the accident. The Tribunal also erred in dismissing the claim petition on observing that R.W.1 and R.W.2 are not the eye witnesses and that their evidence is not helpful to prove the manner of accident. The Tribunal also stated regarding seating position of the petitioner in the car at - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378892016 NC: 2026:KHC:42751 MFA No. 5883 of 2016 the time accident is illogical and improbable, as the left front seat of the car which was vacant and that there was no reason for him to sit on the rear seat of the car and that the history of injuries mention in wound certificate and discharge summary does not indicate that the petitioner was sitting on the rear seat of the car and further that the car was severely damaged on its front portion and that no damages were caused to car to its rear right portion, and that the chance of getting the driver of the car injured was high when compared to the chance of getting the petitioner sitting on the right rear portion of the car injured, and therefore, the evidence of the petitioner that he got injured while sitting on right rear portion of the car and driver of the car escaped unhurt, is highly improbable and unbelievable. Based on the evidence of RW2, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that petitioner alone was travelling in the car and accident occurred due to his negligence and dismissed his application. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 4. Heard the arguments learned counsel for both sides. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378892016 NC: 2026:KHC:42751 MFA No. 5883 of 2016 5. Perusal of the manner of accident shows that, on 01.01.2015 at about 10.30 P.M., the petitioner was traveling in a car bearing registration No.KA-04-MD-2300 from Nagadevanahlli to Kengeri on Outer Ring Road. When he reached near Shirke Apartments junction, ring road, Kengeri Upanagar, Bangalore, the driver of the said car drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the electric pole situated in the centre median of the road. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital as inpatient for four days and underwent surgery. After discharge, he was advised for bed rest. He was aged 35 years working as a Senior Engineer in Toyota Kirloskar Pvt., Ltd., Bidadi Industrial Area and getting a salary of Rs.1,18,991/- per month. Charge sheet is filed against the driver of the car in Crime No.11 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 279, 337 of IPC. Respondents are owner and insurer of the car. The policy was in existence and thus, both of them are liable to pay the compensation. 6. The main contention of respondent No.2 is that petitioner himself was driving the car and dashed the electric pole. The police instead of filing the charge sheet against the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378892016 NC: 2026:KHC:42751 MFA No. 5883 of 2016 said petitioner, falsely and intentionally implicated one Shivakumar. The complaint was filed by colluding with the hospital and police authorities nearly 20 days after the said accident. As it is the case of accident by the petitioner himself, he sustained the injuries which are simple in nature. The driver has no valid driving licence and he violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, they are not liable to indemnify the insured. 7. The petitioner has not examined any eye witnesses to the incident. Respondent has examined investigation officer and their officer as RWs.1 and 2 and filed exhibits R1 to R3. RW1 stated that respondent No.1 gave information about the accident on 02.01.2015 and the next information came from Shreya Hospital on 03.01.2015. Police conducted panchanama as per Exhibit P2 and sketch was prepared under exhibit P3 on 21.01.2015 and IMV inspection was done on 24.01.2015. Following damages were found on the car as per IMV report at Ex.P-4: 1. Front bonnet damaged 2. Left side Headlight damaged - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378892016 NC: 2026:KHC:42751 MFA No. 5883 of 2016 3. Front Radiator damaged. 8. As per Exhibits P5 and P7, petitioner was taken to the hospital on 02.01.2015 with a history of RTA. He was inpatient for 3 days, and discharged on 05.01.2015. RW1 stated that petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 01.01.2015, but exhibits P5 and P7 are contrary to his evidence regarding the date of admission. 9. The contention of the petitioner is that while he was travelling in the car, he met with an accident and one Shivkumar was driving the car at the time of the accident. As such, he is entitled for compensation, whereas the learned counsel for respondent-insurance company disputed the said fact stating that only the petitioner was travelling in the car at the time of the accident and the accident occurred due to his own negligence and he filed a complaint after 20 days implicating his friend as the driver of the vehicle to again wrongfully. 10. In the medical records, it was stated as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378892016 NC: 2026:KHC:42751 MFA No. 5883 of 2016 “H/o RTA on 01.01.2015 at around 11.30 p.m., while traveling in car, hit to road divider and sustained injury to right arm”. 11. PW1 stated that he was sitting on the rear seat towards right side. Respondent No.1 contended that petitioner sustained injury by fall from a tree. Respondent No.2 stated that petitioner himself was driving the car. Respondent No.1 was not present in the car and accident occurred due to the negligence of petitioner. Exhibit P1(b) was created and a false charge sheet was filed against respondent No.1. 12. The main contention of the petitioner is that RWs.1 and 2 are not eye witnesses, he has not examined any eyewitness or his friend, who alleged to have travelled along with him in the car at the time of the accident for the reasons best known to him. The accident occurred on 01.01.2015 at about 11.30 p.m. As per Exhibit P7-discharge summary, he was taken to the hospital at 01.15 a.m. on 02.01.2015. FIR was given on 21.01.2015 after 20 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended as the accident occurred on 01.01.2015 in the late night and the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378892016 NC: 2026:KHC:42751 MFA No. 5883 of 2016 02.01.2015 and therefore, the date of accident was shown as 02.01.2015, and as per Exhibit P1(b), accident occurred only on 01.01.2015. The petitioner has not given any reason for the delay of 20 days in filing the complaint. If at all, the petitioner was travelling with his friend and sustained the accident, why he had not given complaint for 20 days, is not explained anywhere. The Tribunal observed that if the petitioner was sitting on the rear seat and respondent No.1 was driving the car, petitioner would not have suffered any injury and respondent No.1 should have sustained injuries. But, in this case, the petitioner has sustained injuries, which clearly shows that he was driving the vehicle and gave false complaint after 20 days. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-insurance company also upon the judgment of this Court in MFA No.7025 of 2011, in which it is stated as follows. “Fraudulent claims are on the rise. Hence, it is necessary to state that, filing of complaint to the police, or filing of charge sheet by the police, by itself, is no proof of involvement of the vehicle in the accident”. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378892016 NC: 2026:KHC:42751 MFA No. 5883 of 2016 It was further stated as follows: “Delayed filing of complaint to the police by giving particulars of a vehicle stating that it is involved in the accident, or delayed noting of particulars of a vehicle in the police record is prema-facie indicative of its false implication in the accident. In such cases, stricter scrutiny of the evidence assessed with great care and caution. The main test is one of reliability”. 14. It was further observed by the Tribunal that as per Exhibit R1, Shreya Hospital sent information to the police regarding MLC on 03.01.2015. After receiving information, a constable was sent to the hospital to record the statement of the injured. Statement bears thumb impression of the petitioner, but there is no name or signature of the constable, who recorded it, hence record of the statement of the petitioner by the constable is suspicious. It is further observed by the Tribunal that when petitioner and RW1 are friends, the petitioner could have sat on the left front seat of the car and not on the rear seat of the car when his friend was driving the - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378892016 NC: 2026:KHC:42751 MFA No. 5883 of 2016 car. The car damaged on the front portion and no damages were caused to the rear right portion, which clearly shows that the driver of the vehicle will sustain injuries but not the person who is sitting on the right side of the car and thus, arrived at the conclusion that petitioner was sitting on the driver's seat at the time of the accident and as such, he sustained grievous injuries, and respondent No.1 was not present in the car and he did not sustain any injuries. 15. Admittedly, petitioner was discharged on 05.01.2015, but he has not stated any reasons for not giving complaint for 20 days. The Tribunal has rightly discussed all the aspects and held that petitioner himself was driving the car at the time of the accident and accident occurred due to his own negligence. As the petitioner himself is a tort feasor, he is not entitled for any compensation. 16. As per the citation in case of Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another reported in (2009) 1 KACJ 500, it is the bounding duty of the Tribunals or the Courts to rule out the implication of the vehicle, though the - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378892016 NC: 2026:KHC:42751 MFA No. 5883 of 2016 claim petitions are filed under beneficial legislation. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects in detail and dismissed the application. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 17. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order of the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73