- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010517742015 NC: 2026:KHC:39910 MFA No. 3960 of 2015 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. 3960 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHAMBULINGAPPA S/O K.SANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O NEAR SAPTHAGIRI SCHOOL, KUNDWADA ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANJUNATHA S S/O SHETTOJI RAO, MAJOR, R/O 4TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, YELLAMMANAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577 002. 2. B. RUDRAPPA S/O BHARMAPPA .T, R/O 2/360, RTPS COLONY, SHAKTINAGAR, RENEBENNUR, HAVERI DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE 823/7, THILUVALLI COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 002. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010517742015 NC: 2026:KHC:39910 MFA No. 3960 of 2015 (BY SRI. R. GUNA SHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3, R1-SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED, V/O DTD: 13.06.2022 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.636/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-V, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.07.2026 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 order dated 06.12.2014 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V, Davanagere, in MVC No.636 of 2012. 2. The injured claimant met with an accident on 22.10.2011 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. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant in which it is mainly contended that accident occurred on 22.10.2011 at about 1.30 p.m. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010517742015 NC: 2026:KHC:39910 MFA No. 3960 of 2015 Immediately after the accident, people informed about incident to Santosh, son of the petitioner-claimant, and he took the petitioner to C.G. hospital at about 2:15 P.M. At the time of admitting the hospital, the history of injuries was noted by the medical officer at Ex.R2 and on said MLC, the medical officer strike out the word "near" and written vehicle number as KA- 36/J-3509. As such, the insurer has taken contention that on that day, no accident took place. It is contended that insurance company examined medical officer as R.W.2 and she stated in her evidence that basing on the information given by the son of the petitioner, she strike out the word ‘near’ to correct the sentence and mentioned the number of vehicle after forwarding police information. But, Tribunal without appreciating the same, dismissed the claim petition. It is further contended that in Ex.P7-wound certificate, the type of vehicle is mentioned as Kinetic Honda. On the date of accident, when the petitioner was walking on the road, at that time, the rider of bike came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner to his back side, and while admitting to the hospital, his son given information as Hero Honda. Therefore, there is no much - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010517742015 NC: 2026:KHC:39910 MFA No. 3960 of 2015 difference in both vehicles. As the petitioner was in shock, he might not have noticed the type of vehicle. The Tribunal relied upon the discrepancy and dismissed the application. It is also contended that there was delay in lodging the complaint. He took treatment from 23.10.2011 to 14.11.2011. After discharge, he gave complaint and thus delay caused due to the long treatment and it was explained by him, but it was not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that no damages caused to the motorbike, but inspection of the vehicle was done two months after the accident, hence, no visible damages were seen. Rider of the motorbike admitted the accident and police filed charge sheet against him and he also pleaded guilty in a criminal case and convicted. If at all, he is not rider, he would have challenged the charge sheet. The insurance company has not placed any evidence that the bike in question has been implicated by the claimant. The claim petition should not be dismissed on technical grounds as it is a social legislation and the Act itself is a summary proceeding. The standard of proof in this case does not arise like civil and criminal cases. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010517742015 NC: 2026:KHC:39910 MFA No. 3960 of 2015 Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 5. The case of the petitioner-claimant is that on 22.10.2011 at about 01.30 p.m., while he was proceeding near Sapthagiri School by walk, respondent No.1-rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-36/J-3509 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him from back side. As a result, he sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere, and again to S.S. Hospital for treatment. He underwent surgeries. 6. Owner of the vehicle remained absent, after the service of notice. Objections were filed by rider of the motorcycle and insurer. Respondent No.1-rider of the motor vehicle stated that he is a experienced rider, he had valid driving licence. Accident is not caused due to his negligence and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Respondent No.3-insurance company stated that there is huge - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010517742015 NC: 2026:KHC:39910 MFA No. 3960 of 2015 delay in filing the complaint and it is not explained properly. Petitioner in collusion with hospital authorities and police, manipulated MLC register. In MLC extract, there is clear mention that Kinetic Honda vehicle caused accident but not motorcycle. Rider of the motorcycle, at the first instance, in SS Hospital, stated that Kinetic Honda caused the accident. Subsequently, it was changed to Hero Honda. As such, they are not liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.3-insurance company also disputed the occurrence of accident by motorcycle No.KA-36/J-3509. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not adduced any evidence. The officer of respondent No.3- insurance company and the doctor were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2. Copy of MLC extract, MLC intimation, wound certificate were marked as Exhibits R2 to R4. 7. The Tribunal observed that in MLC intimation, there is clear mentioning of Kinetic Honda hitting the petitioner. But there is correction in MLC record and the vehicle number was overwritten. In the police intimation, there is no mention of vehicle number. But it was stated that accident caused by Kinetic Honda. RW2-doctor also stated that after issuance of - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010517742015 NC: 2026:KHC:39910 MFA No. 3960 of 2015 Exhibit R3 police intimation, vehicle number was written in the MLC Register and further, some addition was made in the MLC register on 10.01.2012. Petitioner has not examined any independent witnesses. It is stated that respondent No.1 pleaded guilty in C.C. No.1110 of 2012 under Exhibit P9. Charge sheet is also filed against respondent No.1. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of this Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Ltd. Vs. B.C. Kumar and Another reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2921, wherein, it is held that MACT's are cautioned not only to allow the claim petitions which are genuine in nature but at the same time the great responsibility on the part of the claims Tribunal to ensure that no false claims are allowed by it. Further it is observed that the Claims Tribunals are require to examine the evidence before it very carefully and merely because the claimant comes out with an evidence that the driver of the vehicle is convicted on his pleading guilty, the Tribunal should not go by plead guilty factor alone but it is required to appreciate the evidence before it from every angle and make an assessment of whole situation. The Tribunal also relied upon another judgment of - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010517742015 NC: 2026:KHC:39910 MFA No. 3960 of 2015 this Court in Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another reported in ILR 2009 KAR 3562, wherein it is held that fraud and justice never dwell together. In case of fraud played by claimants on court in MVC cases in connivance with owner of the vehicle and police, insurance company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation. 8. Immediately after the accident, son of the injured claimant accompanied him and he informed to the hospital authorities regarding the type of vehicle as Kinetic Honda. The accident was occurred on 22.10.2011. Complaint was given on 29.12.2011, i.e. after 2 months. PW1 stated that as he was under the treatment from 23.10.2011 to 14.11.2011 and he could not give complaint immediately. But even after 14.11.2011, he has not given complaint for more than one month till 29.12.2011 and the said period of delay is not explained by him. And as per the evidence, his son Santhosh accompanied him to the hospital and he ought to have given complaint immediately after the accident, but he failed to do so. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010517742015 NC: 2026:KHC:39910 MFA No. 3960 of 2015 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others reported in 2011 ACJ 1911, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “20. It is well settled that delay in lodging F.I.R. cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the F.I.R. with the police. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. thus, çaanot be the ground to deny justify to the victim. 21. The purpose of lodging the F.I.R. in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of F.I.R. certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of F.I.R. is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it.” - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010517742015 NC: 2026:KHC:39910 MFA No. 3960 of 2015 10. No doubt, the delay in filing complaint itself is not fatal in filing the claim petition. As it is a beneficial legislation, it should be explained properly by way of cogent documents. In this case, there is delay of two months and it is not explained properly. Further, there is discrepancy in the type of vehicle. Immediately after the accident, the type of vehicle is stated as Kinetic Honda and in the complaint, it is shown as Hero Honda. The number of the vehicle is not mentioned immediately in Exhibit R3 police information. But later, it was added by the doctor on the information of son of PW1. The doctor is not supposed to make addition or deletion after issuance of the police intimation, this is another factor to be considered by the court. Santhosh who has taken P.W.1 to the hospital is a crucial witness, and is the proper person to explain about the discrepancy regarding type of vehicle and number of the vehicle, but he was not examined by the petitioner for the reasons best known to him. PW1 in his evidence stated that he himself gave information regarding the nature of vehicle. He also stated that at the time of the accident, he noted down the vehicle number. He further stated that he never visited CG - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010517742015 NC: 2026:KHC:39910 MFA No. 3960 of 2015 hospital after discharge. Therefore, question of PW1 informing the vehicle number to the doctor does not arise. 11. Even in Exhibit P7 wound certificate, it was observed by the Tribunal that Investigating Officer without considering the history mentioned under Exhibit P7 and MLC, and without investigating the case properly, filed charge sheet against the rider of a motorcycle and the said Investigating Officer is also not examined by PW1. Merely because the rider of the motorcycle pleaded guilty, it cannot be said that petitioner has proved the involvement of the vehicle at the time of accident. It is for the petitioner to prove the manner of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle and rash and negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, but he failed to do so. The Tribunal also observed that there is no damage to the vehicle as per IMV report. Accident occurred on 22.10.2011. Complaint was given on 29.12.2011 and vehicle was also seized on the same day under Exhibit P6, but it was inspected on 03.04.2012, i.e. 3 months after the date of seizure. As per the manner of accident, there should be damages to the - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010517742015 NC: 2026:KHC:39910 MFA No. 3960 of 2015 Motorcycle. But as per the IMV report, there was no damage to the vehicle. 12. 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 reason to interfere with the said order. 13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order of the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76