- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010369002014 NC: 2026:KHC:46136 MFA No. 6404 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6404 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD BRANCH OFFICE, MANDYA THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX,M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560001 REP. BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, SRI R.LAKSHMANA RAO …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SEETHA RAMA RAO B C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUM. PADMA AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, D/O NANJUNDA SWAMY, RESIDING AT AVVERAHALLI VILLAGE, MALURU HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER FATHER SRI NANJUNDA SWAMY 2. SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR MAJOR, S/O MARADI KANNAPPA, C/O SWAMY SERVICE CENTRE, BEHIND: KARNATAKA BANK, CHANNAPATNA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT (OWNER OF CAR NO. KA.42/4442) …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010369002014 NC: 2026:KHC:46136 MFA No. 6404 of 2014 (BY SRI. RITHISH D. NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 10.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.114/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.40,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.08.2026 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 10.07.2014 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Additional MACT, Channapatna, Ramanagar District in MVC No.114 of 2012. 2. Injured claimant met with an accident on 31.08.2009 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till realisation. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010369002014 NC: 2026:KHC:46136 MFA No. 6404 of 2014 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has preferred this appeal and mainly contained that a TATA Indica Car bearing No.KA-42-4442 was implicated at a belated point of time. Though accident was occurred on 31.08.2009, complaint was given on 07.10.2009, i.e. after 37 days by implicating the vehicle falsely. It is stated that respondent No.2 herein is a friend of PW1. The appellant-insurance company has relied upon the judgments of this Court reported in ILR 2000 KAR 1817, ILR 2009 KAR 3562 and ILR 2009 KAR 2921 regarding the liability of the insurer in case of involvement of the vehicles and stated that the Tribunal erred in fixing the negligence against them. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the order. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 5. The manner of accident as per the petitioner-claimant shows that on 31.08.2009, while she and her parents were standing at Bhairapatna bus stand, one TATA Indica Car bearing No.KA-42-4442 came from Bangalore side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010369002014 NC: 2026:KHC:46136 MFA No. 6404 of 2014 dashed her. As a result, she sustained grievous injuries and shifted to the hospital. Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal filed objections and stated that accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. Driver was having a valid driving licence and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2- insurance company. Respondent No.2, in its objections, stated that the driver of the offending vehicle has no valid driving licence and thus, requested for dismissal of the application. The father of petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and marked five documents as per Exhibits P.1 to P.5. The respondents have examined one witness as R.W.1 and marked four documents as per Exhibits R.1 to R.4. 6. Admittedly, there is delay in filing the complaint and the delay is not explained properly. It is further admitted by PW1, in the cross examination, that Chandrashekar of Channapatna is his friend. He further stated that someone informed him about the number of vehicle and as such, he mentioned the same, but, he is not a witness to the occurrence. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010369002014 NC: 2026:KHC:46136 MFA No. 6404 of 2014 7. In the FIR at Exhibit P1, it was stated that some vehicle hit his daughter while crossing the road. The complaint was registered in Crime No.271 of 2009 on 07.10.2009 at about 04.00 p.m. for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and read with 187 IMV Act. It was stated that after the accident, the driver of the car did not stop the car and sped away from the place. It was admitted that spot mahazar and vehicle seizure mahazar were conducted on different dates. PW1 admitted that they have not challenged the charge sheet and the vehicle is having the valid insurance policy. 8. In this case, the minor petitioner, aged 12 years, met with an accident on 31.08.2009. But the complaint was given after 37 days implicating the vehicle wrongfully. It is for the claimant to prove the manner of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle and rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. But the claimant failed to prove the involvement of offending vehicle. PW1 simply stated that as he was attending his daughter in the hospital, he could not give complaint immediately. But the delay in filing the complaint is 37 days, which is abnormal and the said explanation is not - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010369002014 NC: 2026:KHC:46136 MFA No. 6404 of 2014 satisfactory. As per the judgment 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. It is a clear case of implication of the vehicle to gain wrongfully. Therefore, this Court finds that Tribunal was swayed away by sympathies and granted compensation and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein to deposit the amount without considering the evidence of the appellant-insurance company. Therefore, order passed by the Tribunal is not on proper appreciation of facts and needs to be set aside. 9. In the result, appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. The amount deposited by the insurance company is to be transferred to the tribunal and is to refunded to them. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69