- 1 - RESERVED ON : 31.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 14.01.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5691 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGARATHNA, W/O N. MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.319, 2ND CROSS, RABIN THEATER, KENGERI UPANAGARA, BANGALORE – 560 060. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARESH KUMAR J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHARATHI INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT, NO.576, DEVANS ROAD, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMI NARASAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 2 - THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF DISMISSAL DATED 30.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2879/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & 27TH ACMM, BENGALURU, BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AS PRAYED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 unsuccessful claimant calling in question judgment and award dated 30.11.2015 in MVC No.2879/2014 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal (SCCH-11), (‘the Tribunal’ for short). 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The claimant was proceeding as a pillion on motorcycle bearing No.KA-41-S-0430 along with the rider of the owner, on 16.05.2014 at about 08.00 p.m. When they reached near Anchepalya in front of Rajarajeshwari Hospital, at that point of time, a car bearing - 3 - No.KA-09-B-9916 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, dashed against the motorcycle resulting in severe injures to the claimant. The claimant was immediately shifted to Rajarajeshwari Medical College and Hospital and she was admitted as inpatient from 16.05.2014 to 28.05.2014. In the hospital it was revealed that she had sustained fracture of right humerus in junction of middle 1/3rd and distal 1/3rd and other grievous injuries. She had undergone open reduction for internal fixation with LCP right humerus on 19.05.2014 and discharged with advice of follow-up treatment. 4. The claimant prior to the accident was doing tailoring work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and maintaining her family. In view of injury suffered, which has resulted in disability, her earning is shortened and she is not in a position to earn as she could do earlier. 5. Upon service of notice respondent No.1 appeared through counsel but not filed written statement. Respondent No.2-Insurer appeared through its counsel and filed written statement denying the claim averments and taking up contentions that the driver of the car was - 4 - not holding a valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. The Tribunal upon completion of pleadings framed three issues, and the first issue is on the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car. 7. The claimant in order to prove his case examined as PW.1 and two witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 (Dr.Roshan Kumar.B), produced 27 documents and marked the same as Exs.P1 to P27. Respondent No.2/Insurer has not chosen to lead any evidence. 8. The Tribunal upon considering the pleading and evidence both oral and documentary answered issue No.1 i.e., on the fact of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car, in negative and proceeded to dismiss the claim petition. 9. The main reason for the Tribunal to dismiss the petition is the delay in lodging the complaint. The Tribunal has observed that the accident had occurred on 16.05.2014 at about 08.00 p.m. and the FIR was registered on 24.05.2014 at about 05.30 p.m. The rider of - 5 - the motorcycle is the brother of the petitioner, however not filed any complaint with the police immediately after the accident. Further observed that PW.2 in his evidence stated that he had gone to the place of accident within 10 minutes after the accident, but not lodged any complaint immediately. Though there is a copy of intimation to the police found in the records, however, as there is no seal and signature on the said intimation to show that the Police have received the intimation, the same was not considered. 10. The Tribunal stated that, there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, as such the evidence of PW.2 is not believable, as PW.2 has given different time than the PW.1 with respect to the accident. 11. The Tribunal is mainly on the point that there is delay in lodging the complaint by 10 days, and reached to the conclusion that the same creates suspicious circumstances regarding the alleged accident. Accordingly, held that the Issue No.1 has not been proved against the driver of the car and proceeded to hold further issues on entitlement of claim, does not survive in view of answer to - 6 - Issue No.1 and dismissed the entire claim petition. It is this judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is called in question in this appeal. 12. Heard Sri. Naresh Kumar J., learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant and Sri. Lakshmi Narasappa. K.S, learned counsel for Sri A.M. Venkatesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurer. 13. Sri. Naresh Kumar, on short point submits that in the entire judgment, the Tribunal has stated that there is delay in lodging the complaint and the same has not been properly explained, which creates suspicion regarding the alleged accident. It is not in dispute that the appellant has sustained grievous injury and was an inpatient for considerable time for a period of 12 days i.e., upto 28.05.2014. It is also not in dispute that she has underwent surgery for fixation of implants, on 19.05.2014. 14. It is an admitted fact that the claimant was inpatient even when the complaint was registered i.e., on 24.05.2014, whereas she was discharged from the hospital on 28.05.2014. The husband was looking after the appellant. In the complaint the landlord of the residential - 7 - rental home of the claimant has stated the reason for delay in registering the complaint. The police having registered the case, after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the car. 15. Though the owner of the car appeared before the Court, but not filed any statement of objections. Neither the driver nor the owner of the offending car have challenged the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending car. 16. The Insurer has not led any evidence to substantiate its contention on the delay in lodging the complaint and the same creates suspicion. In the absence of such evidence, the reason assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law. The Tribunal though has stated in its judgment that there is some document regarding intimation of the accident to the police available in the records, but only for the reason that there is no seal and signature forthcoming in the said intimation, declined to look into the document and held that the same cannot be accepted as intimation to the police. There is no dispute regarding the injury sustained. - 8 - The claimant immediately after the accident was shifted to the hospital and was an inpatient even on the date the complaint was filed. This important aspect of the matter has been missed by the Tribunal which requires consideration. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal. 17. In contrast, Sri Lakshmi Narasappa K.S., with all vehemence supporting the judgment of the Tribunal, submits that it is not mere delay, but delay coupled with the admissions given by PW.2 in his evidence are the reasons for the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the delay in lodging the complaint creates suspicion regarding the alleged accident. 18. PW.2, the husband of the claimant says that he came to the spot of accident within 10 minutes, whereas PW.1 has stated in her cross-examination that her husband came from Mangalore after 5 days from the date of accident. These are the circumstances, which created doubt regarding the alleged accident which has properly been considered by the Tribunal and sought to dismiss the appeal. Upon hearing the parties the judgment is reserved. At this stage, Sri A.M. Venkatesh, learned - 9 - counsel for the Insurer submits that the accident is of the year 2014, the claim petition was filed in the year 2014 and the judgment and award was passed in the year 2015, the appeal came to be filed in the year 2016, but the notice was issued after much considerable delay, i.e., in the year 2017. 19. He further submits that in the event this Court is inclined to allow the appeal, the Insurer shall not be made liable to pay interest for the delayed period i.e., from the date of filing of the appeal till the disposal, as the delay is attributable to the claimant-appellant. 20. Refuting the submission of learned counsel for respondent, Sri Naresh Kumar, submits that there is no delay attributable to the appellant. The notice was ordered to be issued in the year 2017. The steps were immediately taken and records were called. A perusal of the order sheet indicates that the matter after 12.04.2018, was listed again before this Court on 18.08.2021. Once the matter was heard in the year 2023, on the side of appellant and it has been treated as part heard and listed for arguments of respondent No.2, but respondent No.2 - 10 - has not advanced argument. It was again listed on several occasions. In these circumstances the contention of learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurer cannot be countenanced. 21. Upon hearing learned counsel the only point that would arise for consideration of this Court is: “Whether the Tribunal is justified in answering issue No.1 in negative against the claimant?” 22. My answer to the above point for consideration is in negative and in favour of claimant for the following: REASONS 23. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained severe injuries in the accident and was inpatient from 16.05.2014 to 28.05.2014. She has undergone surgery for insertion of implants. In the cross-examination of claimant the question regarding intimation to the police has been answered affirmatively by PW.1. Even the PW.2 stated in cross-examination regarding the intimation and also stated that he has produced the document before the Court. Though the Tribunal stated regarding the said - 11 - intimation that, the said intimation copy is available in the record, but for the absence of seal and signature declined to accept the same. 24. A perusal of complaint indicates that the delay has been properly explained. The claimant has sustained severe injuries and was inpatient for considerable time. The husband was working as a security guard in the KSRTC, at Bengaluru. The complainant who is the landlord of the residential rental home had stated that after the accident the claimant was immediately shifted to the hospital. The claimant had undergone surgery and thereafter shifted to ward and after collecting the hospital records the complaint is filed. The Insurer except on delay is not seriously disputing the accident and severe injuries sustained by the claimant. 25. The complaint came to be lodged on 24.05.2014. i.e., much prior to discharge of the claimant. This indicates that the claimant was not in a position to go to the police and lodge complaint. She perhaps was under the impression that the police might have registered the case and took up the investigation on the intimation by the - 12 - hospital. The presence of document regarding intimation pre-supposes the belief of the claimant. 26. This Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases have held that mere delay in lodging the complaint alone cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s and not fatal to the case. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others1 at paragraph Nos.17, 18 and 19 has held as under: “17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the 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. 18. 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 scrutinised more carefully. If the 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. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 - 13 - type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. 19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the 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 a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity 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.” 27. In the case on hand, the police have registered the case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. The same is intact and not challenged either by the driver of the offending vehicle or by the owner of the vehicle. The Insurer in terms of pleadings and arguments has not led any evidence to discredit the police investigation, except arguing on delay. In these circumstances, mere delay cannot be held to be fatal to the case on hand. The complaint which has been lodged by the complainant after 10 days with plausible explanation requires consideration. - 14 - 28. Though a document regarding intimation was placed on record, but the Tribunal declined to accept the same in view of absence of seal and signature by the police. In the factual background of the case on hand, the Tribunal has committed serious error in not accepting the case of the claimant made out on the basis of police reports. The Tribunal, in the absence of any substantial, cogent evidence led by the Insurer in contra to the evidence placed by the claimant based on preponderance of probabilities, exceeded in holding that the delay is fatal to the case. 29. This Court is of the opinion that, the said finding of Tribunal suffers from legal error and the finding on Issue No.1 requires to be set aside. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in favour of the claimant, holding that in view of the police records and the oral evidence in support of the same, the driver of the offending vehicle is responsible for the accident and caused injuries to the claimant-appellant. Accordingly, Issue No.1 framed by the Tribunal is answered in affirmative. Since the Tribunal has not considered the case - 15 - on merits on the basis of the evidence led by the claimant to prove her entitlement to the compensation, the matter requires to be remanded to the Tribunal for determining the compensation for which the claimant is entitled in law. 30. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on delay in prosecuting the appeal, this Court is of the opinion that though the respondent-Insurer submits that the delay is attributable to the claimant, but a perusal of order sheet indicates that the delay is attributable to the Insurer as well as both are equally caused delay in disposing of the appeal. Having considered the rival submissions, if the payment of interest is restricted for a period of 5 years, out of 10 years of the total appeal period pending before this Court would meet ends of justice. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 30.11.2015 in MVC.No.2879/2014 on - 16 - the file of MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-11) is set aside. Issue No.1 is answered in affirmative. (iii) The matter is remanded to the concerned Tribunal to decide only on the entitlement of compensation for the injuries sustained. (iv) Both the parties are at liberty to lead further evidence only on the aspect of entitlement of compensation. (v) The Tribunal is requested to dispose of the matter at the earliest, considering the date of accident and the date of the claim petition, as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of 6 months from the date of appearance fixed by this Court. The parties are directed to appear before the Court on or before 28.02.2026, without expecting any notice from the Court. The Tribunal - 17 - shall dispose of the matter within six months thereafter. (vi) On compensation to be awarded, the claimant is entitled for interest from the date of petition till realization minus 5 years, out of 10 years of appeal period, taken before this Court. (vii) The Registry is directed to transmit records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith, without causing any further delay, in view of direction being issued to the parties to appear before the Tribunal. (viii) Both the parties shall co-operate for disposal of the claim petition without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. (ix) No order as to costs. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TMP/RR ct-vn