- 1 - MFA.No.2636/2015 RESERVED ON : 31.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 27.01.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2636 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMN. OFFICER MR. E. JAYASEELAN. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/o. LATE. SINGACHARI, NO.365, PIPELINE ROAD, SRINIVASANAGAR, NEAR: ANNIE BESANT SCHOOL, SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE – 560 091. 2. SRI. DHANANJAIAH T.S., MAJOR, S/o. SRI.SHIVALINGAPPA, NO.99, ADAKAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, MAKALI POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, - 2 - MFA.No.2636/2015 BANGALORE – NORTH TALUK -560 079. (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA.52/H-3758) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.V. SHIVANANDA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 16.12.2019, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.01.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5746/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & XXVI ACMM, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 1,09,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, T.M.NADAF, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is by insurer, calling in question the judgment and award dated 06.01.2015 in MVC.No.5746/2013 passed by Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore (SCCH-09) (‘Tribunal’ for short) on the ground of liability. - 3 - MFA.No.2636/2015 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. The brief factual matrix leading to filing of present petition are as under: 4. On 09.05.2013 at 10.00 a.m, the claimant registered a complaint with Yeshwanthpura traffic police stating that he met with an accident on 05.05.2013, due to the actionable negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-52-H-3758. Immediately, after the accident he took treatment with a Ayurvedic doctor (Nati Vydya) and as the injuries as well as pain aggravated, he went to K.C.General Hospital. He registered the complaint before the police on 09.05.2013 at 10.00 a.m. and thereafter admitted to the hospital, at 11.40 a.m., on the same day. The police having conducted the investigation filed charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle. 5. The claimant preferred a claim petition seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- for the injuries - 4 - MFA.No.2636/2015 caused in the road traffic accident due to the actionable negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. 6. Upon issuance of notice, respondent No.1/owner of the motorcycle though served remained absent and placed ex-parte. 7. The respondent No.2/insurer appeared and filed written statement inter alia contending that the motorcycle is not involved in the accident and the same is falsely implicated to make unjust enrichment and sought to dismiss the claim petition. 8. Upon completion of pleadings the Tribunal framed in all three issues: (1) On the rash and negligence of the rider of the motorcycle; (2) The entitlement of compensation; (3) What order to be passed? 9. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined as PW-1 and two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3, produced 15 documents and marked as Exs.P1 to P15. The respondent - 5 - MFA.No.2636/2015 No.2-Insurer examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2, produced four documents and marked as Exs.R1 to R4. 10. The Tribunal answered Issue No.1 in ‘affirmative’ and Issue No.2 ‘partly in affirmative’ and awarded a total sum of Rs.1,09,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till realisation. 11. The Tribunal has held that there is no serious dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the offending motorcycle and also the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The claimant has proved accident as per Ex.P1-F.I.R, wherein it is stated that the accident was occurred on 05.05.2013 at about 8.10 a.m. The filing of charge sheet against the rider of the vehicle is the prima facie evidence which has proved and established, that the accident was due to the actionable rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. So far as the contention raised by the insurer that there is no document placed to establish the treatment taken to the injuries sustained on 05.05.2013, the Tribunal answered the same stating that immediately after the accident, the - 6 - MFA.No.2636/2015 claimant was taken to local Nati Vydya (Ayurvedic doctor) and when the injury was aggravated, he constrained to lodge the complaint and admitted to the hospital. 12. The Tribunal has further held that there is no reason to disbelieve the explanation offered by the claimant. The non-production of document regarding initial treatment before the Ayurvedic doctor is due to non- availability of the documents with the Ayurvedic doctor. The Tribunal has held that though respondent No.2 has taken a contention that there is collusion between respondent No.1 and the claimant to claim compensation, however, no evidence to that effect has been produced to substantiate the same. For this the Tribunal underscored that in the MLC register it is forthcoming that the accident had taken place due to the involvement of motorcycle and even the number of the vehicle has been reflected in the MLC register. Accordingly, the Tribunal has concluded that the rider of the motorcycle is responsible for the accident, due to his rash and negligent riding resulting in injuries to the claimant and accordingly held Issue No.1 in - 7 - MFA.No.2636/2015 ‘affirmative’ and proceeded to pass award stated supra. It is this judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, called in question by the Insurer on the ground of liability. 13. Heard Sri.Anup Seetharam Rao, learned counsel appearing for Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer and Sri. R.V.Shivananda Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Claimant. Vide order dated 16.12.2019, notice of this appeal to respondent No.2/owner of the motorcycle is held sufficient. 14. Sri.Anup Seetharam Rao, argued this appeal on many grounds, they are summed up as follows: (a) The claimant, regarding the accident has not examined any independent eyewitness nor the Investigation Officer has taken statement of any eyewitness regarding the involvement of the vehicle. In these circumstances, the accident itself is not proved. (b) As per complaint and F.I.R, the claimant filed complaint before the Yeshwanthpura traffic police on 09.05.2013 at 10.00 a.m., stating that, in the accident - 8 - MFA.No.2636/2015 occurred on 05.05.2013, he has suffered injuries inter alia fracture. After registering the report with the police, he went to K.C.General Hospital on the same day at 11.40 a.m. As per the medical records, he has suffered fracture of lateral condyle left tibia, in the accident occurred on 05.05.2013. No medical records produced to show the earlier treatment for the fracture injuries. This creates doubt regarding the injuries sustained by the claimant. (c). There is no plausible explanation forthcoming in the complaint and the one stated is very abnormal and cannot be believed. (d) The insurer had issued notice under Exs-R3 and R4 to the owner of the motorcycle. However, there is no response from respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle, answering the queries sought in the notice. Though the owner of the vehicle was served before the Tribunal he remained absent. This presupposes that there is collusion between claimant and respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle. (e) A perusal of charge sheet clearly shows that the same is conducted against the procedure contained under - 9 - MFA.No.2636/2015 the provisions of Cr.PC. In the charge sheet, the Investigation Officer has stated that he has received MLC intimation from the hospital on 09.05.2013, which is per se false as the MLC is registered subsequent to complaint which is clear from both the documents that is MLC register as well as the complaint. The police have not recorded any statement of the eye witnesses, except the self-serving statement of the claimant, there is nothing on record to show that the accident had occurred involving the motorcycle stated supra. (f) A perusal of charge sheet clearly indicates that a notice under Section 133 of IMV Act, was sent to respondent No.2 on 05.06.2013 and on the same day he has appeared and submitted the records. There is no seizure of offending vehicle. The Investigating Officer stated in his examination-in-chief that he has not drawn the vehicle seizure mahazar. The Investigating Officer has been examined as RW.1 by the Insurer, in the examination chief itself he has clearly stated that he has not conducted any investigation from 09.05.2013 to 05.06.2013. Further, - 10 - MFA.No.2636/2015 he has stated in his examination-in-chief that “it may be true that the petitioner and owner of the offending bike are relatives.” (g) The RW.1 in his cross-examination by the claimant made an attempt to overcome his admission in the examination- in-chief by saying that he has no documents with him to show that claimant and owner- rider of the offending vehicle were relatives. In the re- examination he has categorically admitted that he has no document to show that after registration of the F.I.R he had obtained the vehicle documents from the RTO. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective on the test of preponderance of probabilities which has led the Tribunal in passing the judgment and award against the document and as such amounts perverse finding. 15. He further states that, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that there is no plausible explanation forthcoming for the belated complaint. As per the claimant, he has sustained fracture in the accident on - 11 - MFA.No.2636/2015 05.05.2013. However, there is no document produced regarding the treatment which he had taken till 09.05.2013. He registers the case first and thereafter admitted to the hospital. This creates suspicion regarding the accident on 05.05.2013. In the absence of any documents regarding treatment taken at the earlier point of time, the explanation offered is belied and no probative value could be given to the same. With this, Sri. Anup Seetharam Rao sought to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment fastening liability on the insurer to pay the compensation. 16. Opposing the submissions of Sri. Anup Seetharam Rao, Sri.Shivananda Reddy, with all vehemence supporting the judgment of the Tribunal submits that the Tribunal after appreciation of records before it, with a reasoned order answered Issue No.1 in ‘affirmative’ holding that the rider of the motorcycle is responsible for the accident due to his rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle and caused the injuries. There is a plausible explanation given in the complaint for the delay - 12 - MFA.No.2636/2015 which has been accepted by the Tribunal on the prima facie value of charge sheet filed by the Police. The filing of charge sheet indicates that there is case made out against the rider of the vehicle and the claimant's entitlement for compensation. There is no fruitful cross-examination of the claimant by the Insurer to support his case. With this learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal. 17. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only question that arises for consideration is: “Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 05.05.2013, due to the actionable negligence in riding of the motorcycle by its rider and in awarding a sum of Rs.1,09,000/- with 6% interest.” 18. My answer to the above point for consideration is in Negative for the following: REASONS 19. It is an admitted fact by the claimant himself that there are no documents available with him to show - 13 - MFA.No.2636/2015 the earlier treatment taken with the Ayurvedic doctor (Nati Vydya). As per the claimant, he has sustained injuries including fracture of lateral condyle of left tibia in the accident occurred on 05.05.2013. He has not taken any treatment for the fracture injury. He has registered the report with the police on 09.05.2013 at 10.00 a.m., and thereafter admitted to the K.C. General Hospital at 11.40 a.m. In the cross-examination, he has clearly admitted as “It is true that I got no hurdles or problems to lodge the police complaint immediately after the accident.” This admission in cross-examination clearly indicates that the explanation offered in the complaint cannot be countenanced. 20. There are no records to show the treatment he has taken with the Ayurvedic doctor (Nati Vydya). In the cross-examination, he has stated that he had taken the treatment at Lakkenahalli and he has clearly admitted that he has not produced any document to show that he has taken treatment at Lakkenahalli. Even he has not stated name of the Ayurvedic doctor with whom he has taken - 14 - MFA.No.2636/2015 treatment. Nothing is forthcoming as to why the said doctor has not been examined to substantiate the contention of the claimant regarding initial treatment. 21. Though the delay is not the only reason to subside the case of claimant in motor vehicle accident cases, however, if the delay is not plausibly explained creates a suspicion regarding the alleged accident. In the present case on hand, the accident occurred on 05.05.2013, wherein the complainant had sustained fracture injuries. However, there is no medical record to show regarding the treatment which he has taken prior to lodging of the complaint on 09.05.2013 at 10.00 am and admitting at the hospital on 11.40 a.m., on the same day. All the records are subsequent to police complaint, it is generally hard to accept that a person could remain with a fracture without taking any treatment for 4 days. This coupled with the admission by the claimant that there is no hurdle for lodging the complaint and the absence of documents of earlier treatment as admitted in the cross- examination creates a cloud of suspicion regarding the - 15 - MFA.No.2636/2015 accident occurred on 05.05.2013, wherein the claimant sustained injuries. 22. In these circumstances, the delayed F.I.R also requires a relevance. The reason being the complaint was lodged belatedly without there being any plausible explanation and even if any, the same has been taken away by the admission in the cross-examination which I have already extracted above. Even the Investigation Officer who has been examined as RW-1, had clearly stated that he has not conducted any investigation from 09.05.2013 to 05.06.2013. He has not recorded any mahazar regarding seizure of the vehicle. The statement of the Investigation Officer in the examination-in-chief stating that he has registered the complaint on 09.05.2013 regarding the accident occurred on 05.05.2013 on the intimation received through the hospital on 09.05.2013, is totally false for the simple reason that the complaint came to be lodged with the police at 10.00 a.m., as per the complaint, whereas the MLC register clearly shows that the same was recorded at - 16 - MFA.No.2636/2015 11.40 a.m., on 09.05.2013. This creates a reasonable doubt in the alleged accident on 05.05.2013 and injury sustained by the claimant therein. The Tribunal has missed this important aspect of the matter however, swayed on the police record to come to a conclusion that the charge sheet filed prima facie shows that there is accident on 05.05.2013, resulting in injuries to the claimant. Accordingly, the said reasoning is against the record and liable to be set aside. 23. It is trite that though the claim is under a beneficial legislation, however, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that the case itself is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, which indicates that a false case is made out by implicating a vehicle, the Court must guard itself with great caution while dealing with such cases. As the principle underlying is a claim petition filed must not result in an unjust enrichment. Given the factual background of the case, the insurer has made out a case that a false case has been foisted to make a claim. In these circumstances, such claim must not be allowed to - 17 - MFA.No.2636/2015 stand, as the same goes against the object with which the Act has been enacted. 24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the answer by the Tribunal to Issue No.1 in ‘affirmative’ required to be set aside and be held as ‘negative’. As the accident itself has not been proved, the question of injuries sustained in the said accident becomes hard to accept. In view answering Issue No. 1 in negative there is no question of granting any compensation and fastening the liability on the Insurer. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered as stated supra and this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 06.01.2015 in MVC.No.5746/2013 passed by Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore (SCCH-09) is set aside, answering Issue No.1 in Negative. Consequently, the - 18 - MFA.No.2636/2015 claim petition filed by the claimant is dismissed. iii) The amount in deposit shall be returned to the appellant-insurer on proper identification. iv) Registry is directed return the Trial Court records forthwith. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK ct-vn