- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464342016 NC: 2026:KHC:39951 MFA No. 7851 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7851 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SMT. PARIMALA.C.K …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B C SEETHARAMA RAO &.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BHARATHAMMA G AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, RESIDNG AT NO.641, ALLALASANDRA, HALEGRAMA, BANGALORE URBAN-560 065 AND ALSO DYAGERAHALLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 2. SRI. ERAKYATHAPPA MAJOR, S/O NAGAPPA, RESIDENT OF SHYLAPURA, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-561 202. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464342016 NC: 2026:KHC:39951 MFA No. 7851 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.92/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BANGALORE, (SCCH-1), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,67,946/- WITH INTEREST 9 P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 29.07.2026 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 by insurance company against the judgment and award dated 23.08.2016 passed by Member, Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore (S.C.C.H.–1) in MVC No.92 of 2016. 2. Injured claimant met with an accident on 14.05.2015 and filed claim petition compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted the compensation of Rs.2,67,946/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the National Insurance Company Ltd. preferred this appeal and mainly contended that the Tribunal committed grave error of law and facts in holding - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464342016 NC: 2026:KHC:39951 MFA No. 7851 of 2016 that accident occurred when tractor bearing No.KA.07/T-7156 dashed against motorcycle No.KA.02/HQ-1075. The said finding is based on fraudulent police records created based on the belated complaint filed on 12.08.2015. The Tribunal has not looked into Exhibit P16-MLC Report of M. S. Ramaiah Hospital forwarded by Sadashiva Nagar Police to S.P. Chitradurga and Hiriyur Rural PS on 15.05.2015 itself. The police suppressed the said report and created reports based on the misrepresented complaint dated 12.08.2015 to create wrongful liability against them. It is contended that the petitioner-claimant in her earlier statement before the doctor at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital stated that she was still sitting on the tractor and fell down. As per Exhibit P15, she was travelling on a tractor engine and suffered injuries due to fall from the same. The Tribunal has not considered the discrepancies regarding the manner of accident based on the earlier medical records. It is further contended that no eyewitness was examined by the petitioner to prove her contention. But the appellant herein examined RW2 and also filed exhibits R2 to R5 and they were not considered. Therefore, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464342016 NC: 2026:KHC:39951 MFA No. 7851 of 2016 requested this Court to set aside the order dated 23.08.2016 in the aforementioned MVC. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 5. The manner of accident stated by the petitioner is that on 14.05.2015, when the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on TVS motor cycle bearing No. KA-02-HQ-1075 along with her brother and reached near Byadarahalli village, the driver of Tractor Engine bearing No.KA-07/T7156 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent and took sudden right turn towards Iynahalli Village and dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner along with her brother fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital wherein she took treatment as inpatient and petitioner was discharged with an advise to take follow up treatment. 6. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.1 therein did not appear before the court and set ex-parte. Respondent No.2 therein appeared before the court and in their written - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464342016 NC: 2026:KHC:39951 MFA No. 7851 of 2016 statement, they denied the date, time, manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the petitioner, nature of injuries sustained by her and medical expenses. They admitted issuance of the policy in favour of the respondent No.1 for the period from 19.09.2014 to 18.09.2015 under Miscellaneous and Special type of Vehicles Policy, liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and also stated that compensation is excessive. It is further contended that the accident occurred on 14.05.2015, but the complaint is given after 88 days of the accident and no reasons are assigned for the delay in lodging the complaint. The manner of accident mentioned in the complaint is completely false. Motorcycle belongs to her brother. It was suggested to her that tractor came from opposite direction, but it was denied by her and she stated that tractor came in the same direction as that of the motorcycle. There is damage on the left side of the motorcycle and tractor driver stopped the vehicle after the accident. She further admitted that she herself given history while taking treatment in Hiriyuru hospital. Police came to the hospital two days after the accident. Complaint was given nearly 3 months after the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464342016 NC: 2026:KHC:39951 MFA No. 7851 of 2016 accident, she stated that as she could not walk for 3 months due to injuries sustained in the accident, she could not give complaint immediately after the accident. Admittedly, complaint is given by her brother, but not by herself. Therefore, her contention that she was under the treatment and as such, she could not give complaint immediately is not acceptable. Insurance company contended that petitioner, owner of the tractor and rider of the motor cycle and police have colluded with each other and filed this application implicating the tractor to gain wrongfully. The Doctors have recorded in the history as RTA and it was stated that patient was sitting on the tractor. But the word ‘tractor’ was struck off and mentioned as ‘two wheeler’, and it was stated that she was hit by another tractor coming in front of that, when it applied sudden break and she went on to the tractor and again, the word tractor is corrected as two wheeler. It is contended that they have also entrusted the matter to a private investigator to collect the MLC records from M.S.Ramaiah Hospital wherein the petitioner was admitted on 14.05.2015. Accident was at about 02.30 p.m. near Byadarahalli. She was travelling in HTV, lost control and fell - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464342016 NC: 2026:KHC:39951 MFA No. 7851 of 2016 down from the vehicle. The said history was recorded on 14.05.2015 at 09.00 p.m. This clearly shows that PW1- petitioner was sitting on a tractor not as a pillion rider on the motor cycle and she was travelling on a tractor as an unauthorised passenger and she fell down from the tractor. Petitioner relied upon Exhibit P15, where there is no signature of the SHO of Sanjayanagar Police Station regarding receiving of information. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company contended that, in the statement of objections, they have not taken a contention that petitioner was seated on the tractor and therefore, that it is for them to plead and prove, but they failed to do so. It was not explained why the police have not registered a case when she was admitted and Why the hospital has not informed to the police immediately when she was admitted in the hospital. So as per Exhibit R4, she was inpatient and took treatment in M.S. Ramaiah Hospital and they informed the same to the police under Exhibit P16. The Tribunal relied upon Exhibit P4 sketch. It observed that as per IMV report filed under exhibit P5, there was damage to the motorcycle. As right wheel of the tractor came in contact with - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464342016 NC: 2026:KHC:39951 MFA No. 7851 of 2016 motorcycle, the court cannot accept damage to the tractor. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner could not move after the accident, and as such, she gave complaint after 88 days and the delay is explained properly. In the objection, and the respondents before the Tribunal have not taken the plea that she was seated on a tractor or on HTV. As per the relevant documents filed by PW1, there was accident between motorcycle and tractor. And as per Exhibit P8, the petitioner sustained fractural injuries and the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,67,946/-. It is for the petitioner to prove the manner of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, rash and negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. In this case, she gave complaint after 88 days of the accident. Though she stated that she was taking treatment, actually, the complaint is given by her brother. Therefore, her contention in her explanation regarding the delay cannot be accepted. In the earlier statement, it was stated that she was sitting on a tractor, she lost control and fell down. There was correction that the word tractor was strike off and it was shown as two wheeler. Accident occurred at 02.30 p.m. on 14.05.2015 and - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464342016 NC: 2026:KHC:39951 MFA No. 7851 of 2016 on the same day at 09.00 p.m., the history of the accident was recorded as patient travelling in HTV. The main contention of learned counsel for the insurance company is that they have taken the plea in their objection statement at the earliest point of time, but only confronted in the cross-examination of PW1. In their written arguments, they have specifically disputed the manner of accident. Their main contention is that she was travelling on a tractor and fell down, subsequently after 88 days, petitioner has implicated the motorcycle of her brother to gain wrongfully. 7. As per the citation in case of Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another reported in (2009) 1 KACJ 500, it is the bounden duty of the tribunals or the courts is to rule out the implication of the vehicle, though the claim petitions are filed under beneficial legislation. But the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the facts properly and granted compensation. Therefore, this Court finds that it is a clear case of implication of motorcycle bearing No.KA.02/HQ-1075 after 88 days of the accident, therefore the order of the Tribunal is not on proper appreciation of facts and is liable to be set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464342016 NC: 2026:KHC:39951 MFA No. 7851 of 2016 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside . The amount in deposit by the insurance company is to be transferred to Tribunal and is to be refunded to the appellant. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78