- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010274862015 NC: 2026:KHC:44160 MFA No. 5431 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5431 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI BALARAM MOURYA S/O SHESHARAM MOURYA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.4546, 6TH CROSS, DASARAHALLI, BHARATHI LAYOUT, MARIYANNAPALYA, BANGALORE-24. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K. AMAR RAJU S/O K.NARAYANARAJU, R/AT NO.749, BEL QUARTERS, BEL COLONY, NEAR NAGALAND CIRCLE, JALAHALLI POST, BANGALORE-14. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED D.O.5, NO.1, R.M.V. EXTENSION, SHANKAR HOUSE, MEKHRI CIRCLE, BANGALORE-80 BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C R RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD: 26.07.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 18.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010274862015 NC: 2026:KHC:44160 MFA No. 5431 of 2015 NO.5200/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.08.2026 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 18.12.2014 passed by XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.5200 of 2011. 2. The injured claimant met with an accident on 02.08.2010 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8.00 lakh. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record dismissed the application. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant has preferred this appeal mainly contending that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the application on the ground that the claimant has not examined the owner of the motorcycle which caused the accident and further the Tribunal relied upon small - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010274862015 NC: 2026:KHC:44160 MFA No. 5431 of 2015 correction made in the FIR without placing reliance on other relevant materials available on record. The registration number of vehicle is KA-04-EE-5788 and RC owner of vehicle is also not chosen to deny the involvement of the vehicle, merely, correction was made to the effect that ‘ES’ has changed into ‘EE’. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle and he pleaded guilty. Without considering the evidence of PW3 investigation officer, the claim was dismissed. No amount was granted under any other heads. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both sides. 5. The manner of accident shows that on 01.08.2010 in the midnight, i.e. on 02.08.2010 at about 0.10 a.m., the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 01-EC-7116. At that time, rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-EE-5788 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner's motorcycle. He fell down and sustained injuries. Hebbal traffic police registered a - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010274862015 NC: 2026:KHC:44160 MFA No. 5431 of 2015 case against driver of a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 04-EE-5788 in Crime No.127 of 2010. The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the insurer of the motor cycle. As such, both of them are liable to pay the compensation. 6. After issuance of summons, respondent No.2 appeared before the Court and filed written statement. But, respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 stated that both the riders did not have a valid driving licence and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Respondent No.1 has not admitted the occurrence of the accident due to the rash and negligence of the rider to motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04-EE-5788. Respondent No.2 denied the involvement of the said motor cycle, and stated that petitioner colluded with insured, police authorities and filed a false case against the driver of the motor cycle. It is stated that complaint was given after four days and the petitioner has not given any reason for the delay. According to the complaint and police documents, rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-EE-5788 was riding the motor - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010274862015 NC: 2026:KHC:44160 MFA No. 5431 of 2015 cycle, violating the terms and conditions of the policy. They have issued policy to the said motor cycle and the policy is subject to the terms and conditions of the issued policy to the said motor cycle. 7. Petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P75. Respondent No.2 examined Administrative Officer as RW1 and filed exhibits R1 to R7. 8. PW1, in his cross-examination, stated that after the accident, he was little conscious and informed Hemanth Pande and Mishra about the number of the vehicle. But, he has not given the number to the hospital authorities. RW1 stated that in the FIR, motorcycle number was overwritten and in the mahazar, panchanama and charge sheet, the motorcycle number is mentioned as KA-04-ES-5788. But, in the IMV report, it is mentioned as No.KA-04-EE-5788. The insurance company disputed the involvement of the motorcycle and further stated that they have not issued any policy to the motor vehicle number No.KA-04-ES-5788. In Exhibit P1 and P2, the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010274862015 NC: 2026:KHC:44160 MFA No. 5431 of 2015 registration number of motor cycle was over written as No.KA- 04-EE-5788 and in Exhibit P3, the registration number of motor cycle was over written as No.KA-04-ES-5788. The sketch and mahazar discloses the number as KA-04-ES-5788. Exhibit R6 is the statement of Shekar, which shows that the motor cycle involved in the accident is No.KA-04-ES-5788. He is an eye witness and his name is reflected in charge sheet. Except in IMV report, all other police records show the number as No.KA- 04-ES-5788 and it is overwritten as No.KA-04-EE-5788. The complaint is given after four days and Hemanth Pande and Mishra were not examined to prove the correct number. Hospital Authorities submitted MLC register, in which the vehicle number is not mentioned. In the medico legal case register, it was stated that accident occurred between two vehicles on the date of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle and as such, he is not eligible for compensation. In this appeal, it is mainly contended that there was correction regarding one letter i.e. ES is changed to EE. It was wrongfully mentioned by mistake and corrected later. Therefore, the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010274862015 NC: 2026:KHC:44160 MFA No. 5431 of 2015 Tribunal without appreciating the facts properly, dismissed the said application. 9. In the cross examination, the petitioner himself admitted that in Exhibits P3, P4 and P7, the vehicle number was initially mentioned as ES-5788 and also in Exhibit P7, column number and charge sheet it is mentioned. It is for the petitioner to prove the involvement of the vehicle, rash and negligence of the offending vehicle and the manner of accident. In this case, the vehicle number is mentioned as KA-04-ES- 5788 in the MLC document. Only in the IMV report, it is shown as KA-04-EE-5788. The main contention of the respondent is that there is no policy issued in favour of vehicle bearing No.KA-04-ES-5788. This clearly shows that they have implicated another motorcycle bearing number KA-04-EE-5788 to gain wrongfully. Another fact is that there was delay of four days in filing the complaint and the petitioner has not examined even Hemanth Pande and Mishra, who informed him about the number of the vehicle and these two facts supports the arguments of the respondent counsel. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010274862015 NC: 2026:KHC:44160 MFA No. 5431 of 2015 10. 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 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. 11. In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72