- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010301722016 NC: 2026:KHC:48027 MFA No. 3454 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3453 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3454 OF 2016 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3453 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 3454/2016 BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.18 5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, OPP: HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY IT’S MANAGER SRI. GOPAL REDDY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KRISHNA KISHORE S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K. VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARAS, S/O. SRI. KRISHNAPPA, RESIDENT OF KOTHUR VILLAGE, THALI HOBLI AND POST, DENKANIKOTE TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT (TN) PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KRISHNAPPA COMPOUND, III CROSS, NAGASANDRA, BANGALORE. Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010301722016 NC: 2026:KHC:48027 MFA No. 3454 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3453 of 2016 2. SRI. K.R. SAHADEVA MAJOR IN AGE, S/O. SRI. K.R. RAMESH, RESIDENT OF HONCHARAHALLI VILLAGE, ANOOR POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. SRI. RAJAPPA MAJOR IN AGE, S/O. PILLAPPA, RESIDING AT NO. 41-A, LAKSHMISAGARA CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA .N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 AND R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.8006/12 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT & 20TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. IN MFA NO. 3453/2016: BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, No.18, 5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, OPP: HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 01 REP. BY IT’S MANAGER SRI. GOPAL REDDY ...APPELLANT - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010301722016 NC: 2026:KHC:48027 MFA No. 3454 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3453 of 2016 (BY SRI. KRISHNA KISHORE S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MURTHY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O SRI MUNIYAPPAN, RESIDENT OF V.O.C NAGAR, WARD NO 2, CHENNATHOOR POST, KRISHNAGIRI – 635 109 TAMIL NADU STATE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT LAKSHMISAGARA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. 2. SRI K R SAHADEVA MAJOR IN AGE S/O SRI K R RAMESH RESIDENT OF HONCHARAHALLI VILLAGE, ANOOR POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT 3. SRI RAJAPPA MAJOR IN AGE S/O PILLAPPA, RESIDING AT NO 41-A, LAKSHMISAGARA, CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA .N, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.2.2016 PASSED IN MVC - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010301722016 NC: 2026:KHC:48027 MFA No. 3454 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3453 of 2016 NO.8005/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, 20TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,50,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION OF THE AMOUNT. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 18.08.2026 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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru passed a common award in MVC Nos.8005 of 2012 and 8006 of 2012 on 23.02.2016. It is contented that petitioner in MVC No.8006 of 2012 was rider of the motorcycle and petitioner in MVC No.8005 of 2012 was pillion rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-70-D- 9031 and they met with an accident on 14.10.2012 and sustained injuries. As such, both of them filed claim petitions claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- and - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010301722016 NC: 2026:KHC:48027 MFA No. 3454 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3453 of 2016 Rs.1,50,000/- respectively with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from date of petition till realisation. 2. Aggrieved by the said award, United India Insurance Company Limited preferred MFA No.3453 of 2016 against the order passed in MVC No.8005 of 2012. It is stated that the Tribunal considered the evidence of petitioner-claimants and police records, and ignored the contents of medical records under Exhibit P17 and also not considered the evidence of RWs1 to 3 in right perspective. RW1 - M. L. Girish, PSI, Attibele Police Station has clearly stated that he has not verified MLC regarding history of accident. It is a hit and run case. If at all, he verified Exhibit P17 case sheet of the petitioner, he could have not filed charge sheet against the driver of the car and could have filed the charge sheet against the petitioner/claimant. It is further contended that as per Exhibit P17, the petitioner was riding the motorcycle under the influence of alcohol and he was not proceeding as a pillion rider on motorcycle. Only to claim compensation, he was shown as pillion rider. In the hospital records, Venkataraju was shown as - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010301722016 NC: 2026:KHC:48027 MFA No. 3454 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3453 of 2016 pillion rider and Murthy was shown as riding the motorcycle under the influence of alcohol. But, the tribunal without considering the same, granted compensation. Therefore, requested the court to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 3. MFA No.3454 of 2016 is also filed by the same insurance company against the award of the Tribunal passed in MVC No.8006 of 2012 with the same arguments. As such, it need not be repeated. 4. The manner of accident as per the petitioners is that, on 14.10.2012, petitioner in MVC No.8006 of 2012 was riding a motorcycle and MVC No.8005 of 2012 was pillion rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-70-D-9031. While they were proceeding towards Anekal road, driver of the Accent car bearing registration No.KA-04-MB-6734 came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed the petitioners’ two wheeler. As a result, both of them sustained grievous injuries and shifted to the hospital and treated as inpatients. Petitioner in MVC No.8005 of 2012 was working as a - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010301722016 NC: 2026:KHC:48027 MFA No. 3454 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3453 of 2016 stone cutter and petitioner in MVC No.8006 of 2012 was a mason and both of them were earning Rs.8000/- per month. 5. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the Tribunal appeared through their counsel. Respondent No.2 filed written statement in which it was stated that petitions were not maintainable either on law or fact. Petitioner himself was riding the two wheeler under the influence of alcohol and caused the accident. He stated that he was a pillion rider. As per the medical records produced by Medical Officer of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital on 19.9.2015, it reveals that Venkataraju was pillion rider and Murthy was rider of the motorcycle. He was riding the two wheeler with high speed without following the traffic rules and the accident occurred only due to his negligence. Driver of the Accent car was not having a valid driving licence. Therefore, requested the court to dismiss the application. 6. Petitioners in both cases were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and examined their doctor as PW3 and marked Exhibits P1 to P18. Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal examined the PSI, Attibele police station as RW1, MRO of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010301722016 NC: 2026:KHC:48027 MFA No. 3454 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3453 of 2016 as RW2 and Assistant Manager as RW3 and marked Exhibits R1 to R7. 7. It is stated that complaint is given after 18 days by Venkataraju against the driver of the car. The Tribunal observed that mere consumption of alcohol does not prove contributory negligence, respondents have not examined any independent witness or driver of the car, charge sheet is filed against driver of the car and there is no negligence of rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal further held that in Exhibit P2- complaint, it was stated that the petitioners were inpatient and as such, there was delay in filing the complaint. As per Exhibit P17(a), the history in the medical records shows that RTA, hit by car. Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Medical Officer given information to the police officer as per Exhibit R2 on the same day. It is the duty of the police to record the statement of the injured and to file FIR, but they failed to do so, hence it cannot be said, there is delay in filing the complaint. Accordingly, the Tribunal considered the evidence of doctor regarding disability and other factors and granted compensation. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010301722016 NC: 2026:KHC:48027 MFA No. 3454 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3453 of 2016 8. In MVC No.8006 of 2012, petitioner Venkataraju, examined as PW1, has stated that he was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-70-D-9031 by taking his brother-in- law namely Murthy, who was petitioner in MVC No.8005 of 2012, as a pillion rider and met with an accident due to the negligence of the driver of the car. He gave complaint after 15 days. He clearly stated that he was riding a two wheeler vehicle and having a valid driving licence. In MVC No.8005 of 2012, the petitioner Murthy, examined as PW2, has stated that he was pillion rider, but he is owner of the vehicle and he has not produced RC. PW3-doctor in his cross examination stated that as per Exhibit P17, petitioner was under the influence of alcohol and it is marked as Exhibit P17(A). Vehicle number is not mentioned. He stated the calculation of intoxication as per Exhibit P16-OPD card. It was suggested to him that the alcohol content is more than 100 ml., but, he denied it. The Investigating Officer, in his evidence, has clearly stated that he has not verified the history of the accident as per Exhibit P17. As such, he filed charge sheet against the driver of the car, otherwise, he would not have filed it against him. It is for the - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010301722016 NC: 2026:KHC:48027 MFA No. 3454 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3453 of 2016 investigation officer to verify the entire record including the medical records, but he failed to do so. He stated that it is a case of hit and run, and he has not received any intimation from three hospitals and the complaint was given after 18 days. 9. The case of insurance company is that the rider of two wheeler was under the influence of alcohol. As such, he was substituted with pillion rider as rider of the vehicle and they did not come to the court with clean hands. But the Tribunal considered only police records and held that driver of car alone is negligent. 10. RW1-Assistant Manager of the insurance company stated that Murthy was riding the two wheeler. He was under the influence of alcohol as per Exhibit P17 history given in the medical records. It is stated that Venkataraju was a pillion rider. But, they conveniently shown Murthy as a pillion rider. FIR was given on 02.11.2012, though accident took place on 14.10.2012. In the cross examination, he stated that history of the accident is given by one Amarnath, relative of the petitioner. But his name is not mentioned in the charge sheet. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010301722016 NC: 2026:KHC:48027 MFA No. 3454 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3453 of 2016 He stated that he does not know the percentage of intake of the alcohol by Murthy. It is for the Tribunal to consider the entire evidence and record, including the evidence of the claimants and also the respondents. 11. In this case, the Tribunal has totally ignored the evidence of respondents, so also the Investigating Officer who is supposed to verify the medical record before filing the charge sheet, has not verified the same and, based on the complaint given by Venkataraju, filed charge sheet against driver of the car. The petitioners to gain wrongfully changed the rider of the motorcycle as pillion rider and vice versa, and at the time of riding the motorcycle, the rider was under the influence of alcohol and definitely contributed for the accident. Moreover, the complaint was filed after 18 days. Though the petitioners were treated in three different hospitals, no information was sent to the Investigating Officer as per the evidence of investigation officer. The reason for filing the complaint at a belated point of time is stated as that they were inpatient and as such, they could not give complaint immediately. As per the discharge summary under Exhibit P13, Murthy was inpatient for - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010301722016 NC: 2026:KHC:48027 MFA No. 3454 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3453 of 2016 one and a half months. The same was mentioned in the order of the Tribunal. The period of hospitalisation of Venkataraju is not shown anywhere. It is for the petitioners to come before the court with clean hands. Though the rider of the motorcycle was riding the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and it was reflected in the medical records at the earliest point of time, they conveniently changed the name of the rider as pillion rider and vice versa to gain wrongfully and filed claim petitions before the tribunal. But the tribunal, without considering the relevant records as the charge sheet was filed against driver of the car without considering the evidence of respondents, granted compensation. 12. No doubt, the claimants-petitioners are entitled for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act in case of accident. But they should approach the Court with clean hands and should not play fraud upon the Court. Fraud vitiates all the proceedings. Therefore, this Court finds that the order of the Tribunal is not on proper appreciation of facts and is liable to be set aside. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010301722016 NC: 2026:KHC:48027 MFA No. 3454 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3453 of 2016 13. In the result, both the appeals filed by insurance company are allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in both the matters is set aside. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66