- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306422017 NC: 2026:KHC:49033 MFA No. 3784 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3784 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NO. 44, ANANTHA COMPLEX, NH 4, PEENYA, 1ST STAGE, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALROE THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO. 44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BENGLAURU-560025. REP BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GANAGAMMA W/O. RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUTL 59 YEARS, R/O. KHB COLONY, KUNIGAL, NOW R/AT 2ND CROSS, HANUMANTHAPURA, TUMAKURU-572101. 2. SRI. T. RAJANNA S/O. TIMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. NO. 674, KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT, SWATHANTHRA YODHA NAGAR, LAGGERE, BANGALROE-560001. Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306422017 NC: 2026:KHC:49033 MFA No. 3784 of 2017 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R-2 H/S V/O DATED 08.01.2026) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT TUMAKURU IN MVC NO.248/2010 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.11.2016 MADE THERE IN BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND GRANT SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 12.08.2026 AND COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for setting aside the judgment and award dated 8.11.2016 in MVC No.248/2010 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Tumakuru. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306422017 NC: 2026:KHC:49033 MFA No. 3784 of 2017 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Injured claimant met with an accident on 06.01.2010 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.146,363/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till realisation. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. preferred this appeal and mainly contended that the insured motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-EZ 1010 was falsely implicated to secure the compensation from the appellant illegally. Tribunal erred in holding that petitioner sustained injuries due to the wrongful use of the insured motorcycle and fastened the liability against them and it is illegal and arbitrary. The accident occurred on - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306422017 NC: 2026:KHC:49033 MFA No. 3784 of 2017 06.01.2010 and FIR was lodged after long lapse of 5 days i.e. on 11.01.2010, falsely implicating the vehicle. The rider cum owner of the motorcycle was a close relative of the petitioner and he has not intimated about the accident to the jurisdictional police, immediately after the accident. Hospital authorities also not intimaated to the police. FIR was lodged after 5 days. The hospital records reflect that petitioner sustained injuries due to self fall from a two wheeler. The complainant has not explained the delay in filing the FIR. Respondent No.2, relative of the petitioner though represented through counsel not filed written statement and not contested the case and remained as a mute spectator, but the tribunal without appreciating the facts fastened the liability against them. The evidence on record indicates that there was collusion with the local police. The insured, i.e., owner of the vehicle filed a false case against him. Thereafter, requested the court to set aside the order. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306422017 NC: 2026:KHC:49033 MFA No. 3784 of 2017 5. Learned counsel for respondent relied upon citation reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1530 in case of Ravi Vs Badrinarayan and Ors in which it was stated as below, “It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR 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 FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. 21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306422017 NC: 2026:KHC:49033 MFA No. 3784 of 2017 Lodging of Fl 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 FIR 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. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.” 6. The manner of accident as per the petition is that on 06.01.2010 when petitioner was proceeding on Hero Honda Splendor plus motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02- EZ-1010 as a pillion rider, the rider has driven it in a rash and negligent manner and abruptly applied brakes. As a result, the petitioner fell down on the left side of the road and sustained injuries. She was shifted to Sapthagiri Hospital and took treatment for 15 days as an inpatient. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306422017 NC: 2026:KHC:49033 MFA No. 3784 of 2017 She spent Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses. She was doing agricultural work and also milk vending business and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, the Crime No.8/2010 is filed against the rider of a motorcycle. After the service of notice to the respondents, first respondent has not filed any written statement. Second respondent stated that the delay in filing the FIR leads to suspicion. Compensation claim is excessive and the liability of the respondent No.2 is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and the rider of the vehicle had no valid driving license. Petitioner examined herself as PW1 and complainant as PW2 and also examined the doctor as PW3 and filed Ex.P1 to Ex.P64. Respondent has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary. 7. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that there was delay of 5 days in filing the complaint. In the medical records, at the earliest point of time, it was stated that it is a self-fall. But later, the motorcycle pertaining to her close relative was implicated falsely to - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306422017 NC: 2026:KHC:49033 MFA No. 3784 of 2017 gain wrongfully. In the wound certificate filed under Ex.P4, it was stated that she sustained three injuries, out of which one is grievous and the other two are simple in nature. In the discharge summary, filed under Ex.P60, it was stated that she was admitted in the hospital on 06.01.2010 and discharged on 14.01.2010. The rider of the motorcycle admitted her in the hospital and in the said history it was stated that self-fall from the 2 wheeler. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the said document. Ex.P62 is the admission record, in which it was stated that fell down on ground due to fall from two wheeler vehicle, the words after “Due to” was strike off. Even in the document dated 07.01.2010, issued by Sapthagiri Hospital, it was mentioned self-fall from two wheeler. But the word, ‘self’ was strike off. It was also mentioned in the said document that the patient while walking by the side of the road, she was hit by a two wheeler from back. She sustained injury to the left forearm and left gluteal region. But the sentences, “patient - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306422017 NC: 2026:KHC:49033 MFA No. 3784 of 2017 was while walking by the side of the road she was hit by a two wheeler from back” was strike off. 8. The Insurance Company, relied upon the history of the medical record mentioned at the earliest point of time in the above documents and held that the complaint was given after 5 days without assigning any reason and the said vehicle is implicated to gain wrongfully. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to explain the delay of 5 days, but they failed to do so. The tribunal has not considered the said fact, merely because charge sheet is filed against the rider of the motorcycle, it was held that first respondent and second respondent are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount. 9. It is for the claimant to prove the manner of accident, involvement of the crime vehicle, rash and negligence of the rider of offending vehicle. But she failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle and it is contrary - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306422017 NC: 2026:KHC:49033 MFA No. 3784 of 2017 to her statements in the earlier medical records. Initially she stated that it was a self-fall and it was also stated that while she was going by walk, the vehicle dashed her from behind and later came up with a version that while she was traveling as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-E2-1010, the rider applied sudden brakes, as a result, she fell down and sustained injuries. Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts properly and fastened the liability against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the said finding of the tribunal is not on proper appreciation of facts and is liable to be set aside. In the result appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV List No.: 19 Sl No.: 4 CT:SI