- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010486462014 NC: 2026:KHC:44522 MFA No. 7432 of 2014 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. 7432 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., T P HUB, NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRISHAILA S ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. AKKAYAMMA S/O LATE HANUMAIAH @ HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT KADIGENAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BETTAHALASURE POST BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE-562 157. 2. MR. CHANDRAPPA H M S/O DODDAMUNISWAMAPPA MAJOR R/O NO.431, HUTHANAHALLI CHIKKAJALA POST BANGALORE-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010486462014 NC: 2026:KHC:44522 MFA No. 7432 of 2014 NO.1522/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.50,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 05.08.2014 passed in MVC No.1522/2013 on the file of the VIII Additional Small Cause Judge & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, Bangalore to set aside the order. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served and unrepresented and hence they are set ex-parte. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Injured claimant met with an accident on 13.02.2013 and filed claim petition claiming compensation - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010486462014 NC: 2026:KHC:44522 MFA No. 7432 of 2014 of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on the record, granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, Insurance Company preferred appeal and mainly contended that on 13.02.2013 at about 10.00 a.m., petitioner was admitted in NRV Hospital accompanied by her daughter Narayanamma. She informed to the doctor at the earliest point of time, that the petitioner was hit by a 4 wheeler, while she was crossing the road. Later, her statement was also recorded on the same day at 10.45 a.m., in the same hospital, in which it is stated that she was hit by a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-ET-3110. The motorcycle was not involved in the accident, but it was falsely implicated for wrongful gain. In Ex.P11/accident register entry, Ex.P9/discharge summary and Ex.P10/intimation to the police, was stated as follows, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010486462014 NC: 2026:KHC:44522 MFA No. 7432 of 2014 “Alleged h/o RTA near Vidyanagara Cross while patient was crossing the road & hit by a Four Wheeler on 13/2/2013 at 09.15 AM” 5. Ex.P8/Case history and Ex.P6/Wound Certificate discloses that she was accompanied by her daughter and she narrated the incident to the doctor (RW1). In Exs.P8, P9, P10, P11 and Ex.R2 medical records, insertion was made including the vehicle No.KA-04-ET-3110 and the names of Ajay and Chandrappa were also mentioned. 6. The doctor in his evidence stated that the contents of MLC will be registered as per the information provided by the victim or the person accompanying her. In Ex.P10, history of the accident, it is stated that she was hit by four wheeler and the same was mentioned in Ex.P8, P9 and P11. PW1 in her cross-examination stated that she do not know the number of the vehicles. The police have taken her thumb impression in the statement recorded on 13.02.2013 at 10.45 a.m., in which it shows that she was a coolie and while she was returning from her work while - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010486462014 NC: 2026:KHC:44522 MFA No. 7432 of 2014 crossing the road, the motorcycle dashed her and the rider of the motorcycle only took her to the hospital. As such, the charge sheet is filed against Ajay Kumar who was rider of the motorcycle and he pleaded guilty before the tribunal. Tribunal without appreciating the facts fastened liability against them. Therefore, requested the court to set aside the order. 7. As per the petitioner, on 13.02.2013 while petitioner was crossing the road, the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04ET-3110 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed her. As a result, she was shifted to NRV hospital. Further, in the objections filed by Insurance Company/R1, they disputed the involvement of the vehicle and stated that no information was given to him either by the owner or by the police. Petitioner herself was examined as PW1 and examined doctor as PW2. RW1 is examined on behalf of the Insurance Company and they marked Exs.R1 and R2. The petitioners marked Ex.P1 to P11. The main contention of the Insurance Company is - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010486462014 NC: 2026:KHC:44522 MFA No. 7432 of 2014 that the petitioner was accompanied by her daughter and she informed to the Hospital authorities that petitioner met with an accident by a 4 wheeler and it was reflected in all the medical records, at that point of time. But later it was stated that she was admitted in the hospital by one Chandrappa and his son was rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No. KA-04ET-0110 and accident occurred due to his negligence and charge sheet was filed against him. He pleaded guilty. The petitioner has not examined any other eyewitness to substantiate their case, though she was accompanied by her daughter, daughter was not examined before the court for the reasons best known to her. Though it is stated that rider of the motorcycle took her to the hospital, his name is not reflected in the records. PW1 in her cross-examination clearly stated that she did not know anything about the incident. The tribunal observed that Ajay, son of Chandrappa signed on Ex.R2 and Ex.P11, in which it was stated that Chandrappa specified the vehicle as four wheeler instead of two - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010486462014 NC: 2026:KHC:44522 MFA No. 7432 of 2014 wheeler. As such, after the investigation, charge sheet is filed against the two wheeler only. The said observation of the Tribunal is not on proper appreciation of facts. The nature of the vehicle in the medical records is shown as 4 wheeler in Exs.P11, P9 and P10. Later the vehicle number was inserted in the said documents and it was mentioned as two wheeler. Merely because charge sheet is filed against Ajay Kumar and he pleaded guilty it cannot be said that accident caused only due to his negligence. The vehicle involvement itself is disputed. It is for the petitioners to prove the involvement of vehicle, manner of accident and rash and negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, but they failed to do so. As per the citation in Veerappa and Another v. Siddappa and Another, reported in (2009) 1 KACJ 500 it is held that it is the duty of the courts and the tribunal to rule out the implications of the vehicle, though the cases are filed under beneficial legislation. It is the clear case of implication of the vehicle, but the tribunal erred in - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010486462014 NC: 2026:KHC:44522 MFA No. 7432 of 2014 appreciating the facts and fixed the liability against the Insurance Company. Therefore, this court finds that the order of the tribunal is to be set aside. In the result, appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the tribunal. Insurance Company deposited Rs.25,000/- statutory amount and it is to be transferred to MACT for refund. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27