- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367672020 NC: 2026:KHC:39164 MFA No. 5062 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5062 OF 2020(MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI ASWATH R NATH S/O. HARINDRANATH K.K. AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.157, 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, SAIMEODOSUM LAYOUT, KUDLU, NEAR SADGURU SAI INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, BANGALORE-560 068. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., "SRI SHANTHI TOWERS", 5TH FLOOR, NO.141, 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367672020 NC: 2026:KHC:39164 MFA No. 5062 of 2020 KASTURINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 043. 2. MR. VENKATANARAYANA. M S/O. MOTUKU REDDEPPA, NO.67, 6TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, NARASIMHA REDDY LAYOUT, GARAVEBHAVIPALYA BANGALORE-560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 24/08/2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.06.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1262/2019 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, SCCH-1, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367672020 NC: 2026:KHC:39164 MFA No. 5062 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 10.06.2020 passed in M.V.C.No.1262/2019 by the MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH - 11) (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant - appellant. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 23.12.2018, at about 09:45 a.m., the claimant was riding a scooter bearing Registration No. KL-09-AK-5283 on Kudlu Main Road, near Axis Bank ATM, at that time, a car bearing Registration No. KA-03-MZ-4338, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the claimant's scooter. Owing to the impact of the collision, the claimant fell to the ground and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in the said accident. 3. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the claim - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367672020 NC: 2026:KHC:39164 MFA No. 5062 of 2020 petition. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant–claimant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - claimant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 - insurance company. Though the notice was served to respondent No.2, he remained unrepresented. 5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the claimant primarily contented that Tribunal committed a serious error in dismissing the claim petition, despite the claimant having placed sufficient oral and documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. 6. It was further contended that, though the accident occurred on 23.12.2018, the father of the claimant lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police after a delay of 18 days, pursuant to which an FIR was registered and, after investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending car. Placing reliance on Ex.P8–charge sheet, learned counsel submitted that since the driver of the offending - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367672020 NC: 2026:KHC:39164 MFA No. 5062 of 2020 vehicle had pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court, no adverse inference could be drawn against the claimant regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. 7. Further, placing reliance on the evidence of PW.1, Ex.P9–wound certificate, and Ex.P10–discharge summary, learned counsel contended that the said documents clearly establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. With these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the Tribunal, after meticulous examination of the entire evidence available on record, has rightly dismissed the claim petition by assigning cogent reasons, and the said judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. It was further submitted that, as per the claimant's initial version, the accident occurred on 23.12.2018 at about 10:15 a.m. near Axis Bank ATM, Kudlu Bus Stop, when he was walking on the road and was hit by an unknown car. According - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367672020 NC: 2026:KHC:39164 MFA No. 5062 of 2020 to the learned counsel, the said version clearly indicates that the case was one of hit and run. He further submitted that, immediately after the accident, the injured was admitted to Mathru Hospital, Kudlu Main Road, Bengaluru, where he furnished the history of the accident in the said manner. 10. It was also contended that, after a lapse of 18 days from the date of the accident, an FIR came to be registered at the instance of the father of the injured, alleging that the accident occurred while the injured was riding a motorcycle and that a car dashed against the said motorcycle. Placing reliance on Exs.R1, P1 and P18, he submitted that the subsequent version put forth by the claimant is an improvement over the initial history given by him and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim petition. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 so also perused the enitre documents available on record. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367672020 NC: 2026:KHC:39164 MFA No. 5062 of 2020 12. As could be gathered from records, the appellant– claimant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 23.12.2018 at about 10:15 a.m. near Axis Bank ATM, Kudlu Bus Stop. It is not in dispute that, immediately after the accident, the injured was shifted to Mathru Hospital, Kudlu Main Road, Bengaluru, for treatment. At the time of admission, the injured himself furnished the history of the accident before the hospital authorities, which reads as under: Present history Alleged H/O-RTA today at 10.15 a.m. near AXIS Bank ATM, Kudlu Bus stop, A hated by Car while walking (hit & run) C/o- severe pain & swelling left lower Limb No H/O - Major medical illness 13. Admittedly, the hospital authorities did not forward the MLC to the jurisdictional police. The complaint came to be lodged after an inordinate delay of 18 days from the date of the accident, i.e., on 10.01.2019. The explanation offered by the complainant, who is the father of the injured, for the said delay is that, after the accident, he came from Adilabad, Telangana State, and lodged the complaint, and that the intervening - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367672020 NC: 2026:KHC:39164 MFA No. 5062 of 2020 period resulted in the delay. On the other hand it is stated in the FIR that the delay caused due to lack of knowledge about the jurisdiction of the police station. 14. However, there is no material evidence on record to explain why the injured did not disclose before the Hospital authorities the manner in which the accident allegedly occurred, as subsequently claimed by him. Further, it is significant to note that the discharge summary produced at Ex.P18 reveals that the history of the accident was subsequently overwritten at two places, namely, "bus stop" and "hit by a car while walking". No explanation has been offered by the claimant regarding the said overwriting found in the said document. 15. In the evidence of RW.2, the Investigating Officer, he has categorically admitted that the initial history recorded in the case sheet of MLC stated that the accident occurred while the injured was walking on the road and that the said history was subsequently overwritten in the case sheet and in the discharge summary-Ex.P18. He has further admitted that he - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367672020 NC: 2026:KHC:39164 MFA No. 5062 of 2020 did not conduct any investigation with regard to the said overwriting or the change in the accident history. 16. No doubt, the charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the offending car and the said driver pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court. However, the mere filing of the charge sheet and the plea of guilt by the driver, by itself, cannot be a ground to accept the version put forth by the claimant. When there is sufficient evidence available on record to establish that the accident occurred while the injured was walking on the road and that it was a case of hit and run, the subsequent version of the claimant cannot be accepted without further corroboration. 17. It is also not the case of the Investigating Officer that, during the course of investigation, the vehicle which caused the accident was traced and identified as the offending car involved in the accident. 18. Strangely, the FIR came to be registered on the premise that the accident occurred while the injured was riding a motorcycle and that the car came and dashed against the - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367672020 NC: 2026:KHC:39164 MFA No. 5062 of 2020 said motorcycle. The material contradictions found in the oral evidence and the documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal, prima facie, create a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the claim made by the claimant. 19. In view of the aforesaid contradictions and the absence of reliable evidence establishing the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, it appears that the claim petition has been filed without sufficient basis. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31