- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010232432015 NC: 2026:KHC:51814 MFA No. 2546 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2546 OF 2015(MV-D) BETWEEN: K.R. ARAVINDABABU S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O KAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, K R PETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426. (ALLEGED TO BE OWNER CUM DRIVER OF LML FREEDOM MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA-11/L-3610) …APPELLANT (BY SRI JAYANT KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O NARGONAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, K R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426. 2. SMT.LATHAMANI D/O LATE RAMEGOWDA W/O KALIPARTHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O MADHUVIKODI VILLAGE BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, K R PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 812. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010232432015 NC: 2026:KHC:51814 MFA No. 2546 of 2015 3. SUDHA D/O LATE RAMEGOWDA W/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O MURUKANAHALLI VILLAGE SELENARE HOBLI, K R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 203. 4. YOGESHA S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O NARGONAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, K R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426. 5. SAVITHA D/O LATE RAMEGOWDA W/O NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O P D G KOPPALU VILLAGE BOKKANAKERE HOBLI K R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 812. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.09.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.50/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, K.R.PET, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.7,27,119/- WITH FUTURE INTEREST AT 8% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010232432015 NC: 2026:KHC:51814 MFA No. 2546 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 11.09.2014 passed by Senior Civil Judge & MACT, K.R. Pet (Tribunal) in M.V.C.no.50/2011, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Jayant Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Sri Sharath S. Gowda, Advocate for appellant submitted that appeal was by owner challenging finding of tribunal about involvement of his vehicle and liability to pay compensation. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal as per claimant were that at 7 p.m. on 27.04.2011, one Ramegowda was riding his bicycle from Hosaholalu to Nargonahalli on Hosaholalu- Chowdenahalli road, rider of LML Freedom motorcycle bearing no.KA-11/L-3610, drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against victim's bicycle causing accident. Despite victim being taken to Government hospital at K.R.Pet and thereafter shifted to BGS Apollo Hospital, Mysore, and further treatment at Adithyaadikari Hospital, Mysore, victim did not recover and succumbed to injuries. Alleging loss of dependency on account of his death, his wife and four children filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), against owner of motorcycle no.KA-11/L-3610. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010232432015 NC: 2026:KHC:51814 MFA No. 2546 of 2015 4. On service of notice, respondent appeared and filed objections denying claim petition in toto and alleging that claimants had in collusion with police falsely implicated his vehicle with intention to harass him and that deceased had died due to his own negligence. It was also alleged that accident was caused by a Bajaj Pulsar bike ridden by one Lokesha and MLC register extract clarifies same. Therefore, sought dismissal of claim petition against him. 5. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following: ISSUES i. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased died in the road traffic accident took place on 27.04.2011 at about 7-00 p.m. in front of Municipal Counselor Ashoka's house on Hosaholalu Chowdenahalli road due to rash and negligent riding of the motorbike bearing no.KA-11/L-3610 Ramegowda died? ii. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of the deceased? iii. Whether the legal representatives are entitled for the compensation as prayed if so what amount and from whom? iv. What order and award? - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010232432015 NC: 2026:KHC:51814 MFA No. 2546 of 2015 6. Thereafter, claimant no.1 and an eye-witness deposed as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19. Respondents examined four witnesses as RWs.1 to 4 and got marked MLC Register extract as Ex.R1. 7. On consideration, Tribunal answered issues no.1 and 2 in affirmative, issue no.3 partly in affirmative and issue no.4 by assessing total compensation of Rs.7,27,119/- and holding owner liable to pay same with interest at 8% p.a. Dissatisfied with findings, owner was in appeal. 8. It was firstly submitted that only reason assigned by Tribunal to hold actionable negligence as well as liability of owner to pay compensation was that prosecution records had implicated owner's vehicle and its rider for causing accident and same was not challenged by owner, which was incorrect as owner/rider was in fact, contesting criminal proceedings with all due diligence and had succeeded in obtaining judgment of acquittal. 9. It was secondly submitted that this Court in M.F.A.no.102865/2015 and connected matter [2026 KHC- D-11276], observed that a person cannot take two different - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010232432015 NC: 2026:KHC:51814 MFA No. 2546 of 2015 stands in two different proceedings and that finding of acquittal in criminal case would not be a ground for similar finding in motor vehicle accident claim. It was further submitted that PW.2 alleged to be eye-witness and pancha witness to mahazar had stated that after accident, he had got victim admitted to hospital and thereafter informed victim's family about accident. Said statement would contradict with deposition of PW.1, wife of deceased that she learnt about accident from villagers. It was alternatively contended that Ex.P5 spot mahazar and sketch has showed that road at accident spot was riddled with potholes, and therefore, manner of occurrence of accident as alleged was doubtful and that death could not be caused by collision between a motorcycle and bicycle. It was contended that there would be no possibility of anyone riding motorcycle in high speed on such bad road. Therefore, this would also substantiate contention of owner that his vehicle was falsely implicated. 10. Drawing attention of this Court to Ex.R1, MLC Register extract, it was submitted that in history of injuries, it was initially noted that accident was caused by TVS Suzuki motorcycle and same was struck off and instead Bajaj Pulsar - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010232432015 NC: 2026:KHC:51814 MFA No. 2546 of 2015 no.KA-54/7463 was written. R.W.2, Medical Officer of K.R. Pet Hospital, who had issued Ex.R1 also stated that neither victim nor his son who had got victim admitted to hospital had stated that vehicle that had caused accident was LML Freedom. Despite same, filing of charge sheet by Police implicating owner's vehicle which was LML Freedom motorcycle no.KA- 11/L-3610 would clearly indicate false implication. It was further submitted even R.W.3, who was a driver and one of eye witnesses and helped P.W.2 to take victim to hospital also stated that accident was caused by Pulsar bike. 11. It was lastly submitted that complaint appended to Ex.P3 FIR filed by victim's son two days after accident did not mention registration number of offending vehicle or vehicle number or type of vehicle. It was submitted that above circumstances on overall consideration would substantiate false implication of owner's vehicle. It was submitted that High Court of Bombay in First Appeal no.319/2006 disposed of on 18.08.2017 as also High Court of Madras in C.M.A.no.2820/2021 disposed of on 27.01.2023 had relied on finding of Criminal Court ending in acquittal of rider/driver of - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010232432015 NC: 2026:KHC:51814 MFA No. 2546 of 2015 offending vehicle to reverse finding on liability. On said ground, sought for allowing appeal. 12. On other hand, Sri C. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for Sri P. Nataraju, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 5 - claimants opposed appeal. 13. It was submitted that tribunal had on reference to entire material placed on record rightly held accident was caused by appellant's vehicle and awarded compensation. Same did not call for interference. 14. It was submitted that finding of criminal Courts would not be binding on Tribunal. It was submitted that though Ex.R1 - MLC register extract indicated corrections, there was no explanation by RW.2 about corrections being authorized as they were not countersigned. Therefore, finding of Tribunal could not be faulted. On said ground sought for dismissal. 15. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment, award and record. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010232432015 NC: 2026:KHC:51814 MFA No. 2546 of 2015 16. This appeal is by owner challenging finding of Tribunal regarding actionable negligence against appellant. Therefore, point that arises for consideration is: "Whether there is false implication of appellant's vehicle for purpose of claim and Tribunal erred in failing to note same while passing impugned award?" 17. At outset, it is seen that vehicle found to have caused accident by Tribunal did not have insurance. 18. To establish actionable negligence against rider of said vehicle and liability of owner to pay compensation, claimant relied upon FIR, post-mortem examination report, inquest report, charge sheet, spot mahazar, accident spot sketch, seizure mahazar and motor vehicle inspector's report as Exs.P1 to P8. Though statement of PW.1 - wife of victim, in her deposition about coming to know about accident from villagers would not appear to be in tune with statement of PW.2 that immediately after accident, he got victim admitted to hospital and thereafter informed family of victim, such contradiction would not be fatal. It is entirely possible that victim may have come to know about accident from villagers prior to information - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010232432015 NC: 2026:KHC:51814 MFA No. 2546 of 2015 by PW.2. Besides PW.2 could have informed anyone in family of victim. Even contention about absence of possibility of death in accident on a pothole riddled road from collision with motorcycle cannot be deduced as a principle of general application. In absence of any specific material, such conclusion cannot be arrived at. 19. Next contention of appellant based on observation of this Court in MFA no.102865/2015 C/w MFA Cross Obj. no.100040/2016 [NC:2026:KHC-D:11276] (Meermohiddin's case) that a person cannot take two different stands in two different proceedings though may have some substance, but by itself would not imply that in case of contradictory or conflicting stands by a person in two different proceedings, one suitable to appellant in one of them has to be accepted. Contradiction would be a circumstance and attending circumstances have to be referred to find out true version among two. 20. Next contention that finding of Tribunal was based on reasoning that appellant/owner had not challenged implication of his vehicle in criminal proceedings though appears to have some bearing. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Rajani - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010232432015 NC: 2026:KHC:51814 MFA No. 2546 of 2015 Sahoo and Ors., reported in (2025) 2 SCC 599 claimants would be entitled to rely on prosecution records to substantiate actionable negligence and burden would shift on owner to establish to contrary. In this regard appellant/owner has sought to rely upon contents of Ex.R1 - MLC register extract and deposition of RW.2 - Doctor of issuing hospital. 21. As rightly pointed out, perusal of Ex.R1 would show that accident was recorded to have been caused by TVS Suzuki Motorcycle but struck-off and Bajaj Pulsar no.KA-54/7463 written would contradict against FIR and charge sheet implicating LML Freedom Bike no.KA-11/L-3610. RW.2 stated that neither victim nor his son stated that accident was caused by LML Freedom Bike. But even same may not take appellant's contention home. Apparently, corrections are not counter signed. RW.2 - Doctor is from issuing hospital and has not stated anything about corrections being authorized or about intimating Police about reason for correction. There is nothing in deposition of RW.2 in nature of an explanation about need/justification for correction. Police prosecution as well as Tribunal appear to have been led by statement/deposition of PW.2, who had mentioned about offending vehicle and Police - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010232432015 NC: 2026:KHC:51814 MFA No. 2546 of 2015 after investigation implicating same. There is nothing even in Ex.P8 - Motor Vehicle Inspector's report that could form basis for a conclusion about false implication of vehicle in question, as some damages were noted on motorcycle. 22. Even reference to deposition of RW.3 examined as eye-witness by owner does not appear to be reliable as he admitted omission to mention about owning an auto and riding it at time of accident. He admits that he had not produced RC book of vehicle to substantiate same. He also states that he does not remember passengers in his auto. He admits that he did not give any statement before Police. He admits that he is owner of land adjacent to that of owner. Under above circumstances, even request for remanding matter back to Tribunal for providing opportunity to appellant to establish false implication does not inspire Court at this length of time. Under above circumstances, finding of Tribunal based on material on record cannot be stated to be suffering from perversity. Point for consideration is therefore answered in negative. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010232432015 NC: 2026:KHC:51814 MFA No. 2546 of 2015 23. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for payment. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM,GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5