- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010258922014 NC: 2026:KHC:46137 MFA No. 4361 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. 4361 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: DILSHAD W/O MAHABOOB SUBAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT JAKKASANDRA, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MUNIRAJU R S/O LATE M. RAMAKRISHNA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.637/51, 62ND CROSS, BHASHYAM CIRCLE, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. 2. THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.5, 3RD FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. ROSHAN M.C., ADVOCATE FOR R1) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010258922014 NC: 2026:KHC:46137 MFA No. 4361 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.573/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, (SCCH-XXIII), BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 06.08.2026 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 preferred against the judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge and XIX ACMM., Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in MVC No.573 of 2013 dated 31.10.2013. 2. Injured claimant met with an accident on 05.12.2012 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,50,000/. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the application. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant preferred this appeal and mainly contented that, on 05.12.2012 at about 04.15 p.m., while she was walking on the left side of the road, a lorry bearing No. KA-02-AA-7527 came in a rash and - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010258922014 NC: 2026:KHC:46137 MFA No. 4361 of 2014 negligent manner with high speed and dashed him. As a result, she sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital. She was an inpatient for 10 days. It is contended that the Tribunal held that both driver and claimant belong to the same community and colluded with each other, without any basis. It is also contended that immediately after the accident, claimant filed complaint and produced all the relevant police records. Respondents have not led any evidence. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is not sustainable and thus, requested this Court to set aside the award. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both sides. 5. The manner of accident shows that on 05.12.2012, while petitioner was walking on the left side of the road, a lorry bearing registration No. KA-02-AA-7527 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed her. As a result, she sustained grievous injuries. After issuance of the summons, both respondents appeared. The first respondent before the Tribunal filed written statement admitting the involvement of the lorry - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010258922014 NC: 2026:KHC:46137 MFA No. 4361 of 2014 and also stated that the lorry belongs to him. He denied negligence on the part of the driver and further stated that the lorry was insured with respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, in is objections, admitted the issuance of the policy in favour of the lorry but stated that the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Respondent No.2 further stated that owner of the vehicle has not submitted claim form, RC, DL, permit for verification. As per the police records, lorry bearing registration No. KA-02-AA-7527 was not involved in the accident. It was falsely implicated by the petitioner by colluding with owner of the lorry and police, to gain wrongfully. 6. Petitioner examined herself as PW1 and has examined a doctor as P.W.2. Respondents have not examined any witnesses nor produced any evidence. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred on 05.12.2012 at 04.30 p.m., but the complaint was given at about 05.45 p.m. The statement of complainant was recorded at Harsha Hospital during 05.00 p.m. to 05.30 p.m. under Exhibit P2, in the said document, history of RTA is narrated as ‘By tractor at around 04.00 p.m. near Basadevar Math. In Exhibit P2, petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010258922014 NC: 2026:KHC:46137 MFA No. 4361 of 2014 stated that some local people near the spot took her to the hospital in an auto rickshaw and admitted her in the hospital. In the said document, her avocation is shown as house wife. But, in the petition, she stated her occupation as coolie and later, in the chief examination, she stated that she was a tailor and earning Rs.8,000/- per month and her statement in respect of avocation is contrary to each other. Her husband signed the consent form when she was admitted in the hospital. In the case sheet, it was stated that injury to the foot run over by tractor on 05.12.2012 at 04.00 p.m. The age of the petitioner was 32 years, but over written as 34 years. She sustained injury to her left foot. In the earlier documents, the nature of vehicle is shown as tractor. But, lorry was implicated at a subsequent point of time. The driver of the lorry is shown as Athiq Pasha. The tribunal observed that the petitioner and driver belong to Muslim community and as such, there is every possibility of implicating the vehicle, and accordingly dismissed the application. 7. It is for the claimant to prove the involvement of the vehicle, manner of accident, rash and negligence of the driver - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010258922014 NC: 2026:KHC:46137 MFA No. 4361 of 2014 of the offending vehicle. The petitioner met with an accident and was accompanied by her husband in the hospital. At the earliest point of time, it was stated that she met with an accident due to the involvement of tractor. But, later, in the complaint, a lorry bearing No.KA02-AA-7527 was shown. The statement of complainant was also recorded, in which it was clearly stated that accident occurred due to the tractor. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that there is a case of implication of the vehicle. As per the judgment 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 to rule out the implication of the vehicle, though the claim petitions are filed under beneficial legislation. The nature of vehicle stated by the petitioner immediately after the accident before the hospital records is totally different with that of the nature of vehicle mentioned in the complaint. Merely, because the charge sheet is filed against the owner of the offending lorry, it cannot be said that claimant proved the involvement of the vehicle. The Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects and dismissed - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010258922014 NC: 2026:KHC:46137 MFA No. 4361 of 2014 the application. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68