- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6923 MFA No. 9228 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9228 OF 2015 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2286 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 9228/2015 BETWEEN: LEGAL MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., #89, II FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, BANGALORE - 68. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMAPRASAD S/O.GANGAMADAIA, NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT GUDDNAHALLI, MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, AND ALSO R/AT C/O DEVARAJU, POLICE, NO.23, 6TH CROSS, HOYASALANAGARA, SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE - 560 091. Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6923 MFA No. 9228 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016 2. KRISHNAPPA S/O CHIKKAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.221, BIGANENAHALLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA REDDY R.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2810/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER- MACT, BENGALURU, AN AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 2,18,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 2286/2016 BETWEEN: SRI. RAMAPRASAD S/O GANGAMADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT GUDDENAHALLI, MAYASADRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227. AND ALSO RESIDING AT RAM PRASADA, S/O GANGAMADAIAH, C/O DEVARAJU POLICE, NO.23, 6TH CROSS, HOYASALANAGARA, SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE - 560 091. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6923 MFA No. 9228 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA REDDY R.V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O CHIKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.221, BIGANENAHALLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, 89, SVR COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, BANGALORE - 560 068. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.03.2018, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2810/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6923 MFA No. 9228 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the arguments on both sides. 2. These appeals are filed against the judgment and award dated 05.08.2025 passed by the MVIII Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.V.C.No.2810/2014. 3. The injured claimant, who is aged 27 years has met with an accident on 06.04.2014 and filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record, has awarded the compensation of Rs.2,18,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the realization of same from respondents and respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation and indemnify the risk of respondent No.1 within one month from the date of the order. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company preferred MFA No.9228/2013, contending that respondent No.1 had committed fraud. It was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6923 MFA No. 9228 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016 submitted that in Exhibit P9, the entire case record produced by respondent No.1 mentioned as 'fall from tree'. Later, the claimant implicated the insured vehicle in the accident. There is delay of nine days in lodging the complaint and no valid reasons were assigned for such delay, which clearly shows that fraud and misrepresentation played by respondent No.1. It was further alleged that respondent No.1 colluded with the police and created own documents. 5. Reliance was placed on the judgment reported in AIR 2000 SC 1165 in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh and Others, wherein it was held that the Tribunal ought to dismiss the claim petition when fraud is established. It is further stated that fraud and justice cannot be dwell together even for a moment. Reliance was also placed on the decision in SLP No. 15079/2007 in NWKRTC vs. Gourabai, wherein it was held that the medical notings of the doctor must be carefully examined. Further reliance was placed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Venkataramma, reported in 2006 ACJ 1778, wherein it was held that prior filing of a charge sheet is not a necessary requirement. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6923 MFA No. 9228 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016 6. Thus, it is contended that the finding of the Tribunal holding that the accident occurred due to the involvement of the autorickshaw and fastening liability on the insurer is erroneous, and that the compensation awarded is excessive, therefore, the Insurance Company seeks to set aside the impugned order. 7. Against the same judgment and award, the claimant has also filed an another appeal in MFA No.2286/2016 for enhancement of the compensation. He contended that he spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical treatment and other incidental expenses. It was further contended that he was working as a carpenter and mason and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and due to the accident he has crippled. 8. The police registered a case in Crime No. 72/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC against the driver of the autorickshaw and, after completing the investigation, filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and examined the doctor as PW.2. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW.1 and did not mark any - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6923 MFA No. 9228 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016 documents. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate, Ex.P6 is the discharge summary, Ex.P7 consists of medical bills and Exs.P8 and P10 are the X-rays. 9. It was further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is meagre. Hence, the claimant prayed for enhancement of compensation. 10. The manner of the accident reveals that on 06.04.2014, while the petitioner was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-44-5557 near Kalgatamma Temple in Turuvekere Taluk, Tumkur District, the driver driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the autorickshaw capsized, causing the petitioner to fall down and sustain grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Adichunchanagiri Hospital, Bellur Cross, for treatment. 11. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that although the claimant met with an accident on 06.04.2014, he lodged the complaint only on 15.04.2014, i.e., after a delay of nine days and that no explanation has been - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6923 MFA No. 9228 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016 offered for such delay. It is further contended that the vehicle was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on 03.05.2014. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that immediately after the accident the claimant became unconscious and was taken to the hospital by the driver of the autorickshaw and that the driver might have furnished false information to the hospital authorities in order to escape his liability. It was further contended that after investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle and therefore, the said hospital entry cannot be considered. 13. The inpatient records of Adichunchanagiri Hospital and Research Center have been produced before the Court. It was brought to the notice of the Court that in the outpatient case record dated 06.04.2014, the cause of injury was mentioned as “fall from a tree,” and the same was also recorded in the discharge summary as “alleged fall from a tree on 06.04.2014.” There are other physical findings relating to the treatment, however, the following entry was inserted - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6923 MFA No. 9228 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016 between the description of symptoms and the treatment details: “Upside down of autorickshaw according to history given on 09.04.2014 to CMO (AIMS).” 14. Even in the clinical history, it was mentioned that 'self fall from tree and also mentioned that patient was apparently normal for one day back when he had fall from tree and swelling in the knee. There was excessive pain for which he was brought to the hospital and there is difficulty in walking. 15. Nowhere in the medical records is it mentioned that the claimant was brought to the hospital in an unconscious state. It is stated that the complaint was lodged by a co-passenger. Learned counsel further submitted that the co-passenger sustained only simple injuries and as such, he was treated as an outpatient. 16. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon the citation reported in (2009) 1 KACJ 500 between Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another it was held as follows: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6923 MFA No. 9228 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016 "The experience has shown that this branch of law is slowly getting into the hands of unscrupulous people who are making a mockery of judicial process. A disturbing tread of unholy alliance among the police, the doctors, the lawyers and some times even the Insurance Company, to siphorn out the public money, and make an unlawful gain is fast emerging. It is also gaining respectability and persons who indulge in such practices are acclaimed as most successful in their respective profession. This is a dangerous trend, if unchecked would undermine the judicial process. As the existing law is inadequate to check this malady, the Courts not only have to be careful in adjudicating such claims but also find ways to prevent such abuse They have to balance the interest of these accident victims and their legal heirs on one side, by giving them just compensation at the earliest, thus giving effect to the mandate of the parliament, and on the other hand, to see that the very process is not abused and exploited by a handful of persons, who have attained specialization in this field, to make personal gains at the cost of the exchequer. An onerous responsibility lies on the Courts. An onerous responsibility lies on the Courts. Therefore, it is imperative that a strong message is to be sent to the abusers of the judicial process to discourage them from indulging in such practices as well as the consequences of such abuse may result in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6923 MFA No. 9228 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016 foisting the liability exclusively on the insured- owner of the vehicle. (Para 16). 19. It is once again made clear that notwithstanding the vehicle of the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured as we have recorded a finding that it was not involved in the accident. Therefore, there is no third party liability on the part of the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants. This amount is awarded in order to see that in future such false defences are not filed before Court, judicial process is not abused. Therefore, it is only the 1st respondent/owner who is liable to pay the aforesaid amount. Ordered accordingly." 17. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken to the hospital, where the case history was recorded as a fall from a tree. Subsequently, after a delay of nine days, he lodged a complaint against the driver of the autorickshaw, which clearly indicates false implication of the vehicle for wrongful gain. 18. Though the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, it is the for the Court to ensure that only just and reasonable compensation is awarded to a genuine litigant and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6923 MFA No. 9228 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016 at the same time, to protect public money from abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court finds that the present case is one of false implication of the vehicle. In view of the unexplained delay of nine days in lodging the complaint, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, MFA No. 9228/2015 is allowed. 19. The petitioner sustained a fracture of the shaft of the left femur, as evidenced by Exhibit P3-the wound certificate. He also examined the Doctor, who assessed the permanent disability at 21% to the whole body. However, in the cross-examination, the Doctor stated that the fracture was yet to unite and that, after uniting the fracture disability would come down. It was further stated that there would be improvement in the petitioner’s condition in due course. In view of the same, the disability was not taken into consideration. 20. The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.38,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earnings during the laid-up period, and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. The total compensation has awarded to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6923 MFA No. 9228 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2286 of 2016 Rs.2,18,000/- with interest at 8% per annum. Though the petitioner claimed that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, no documentary proof of income was produced. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant filed MFA No.2286/2016 seeking enhancement of compensation. 21. In view of the findings given by this Court in MFA No.9228/2015, the question of granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act does not arise. Consequently, MFA No.2286/2016 is devoid of merit and is dismissed. 22. The amount already deposited shall be refunded to the Insurance Company through e-digital payment. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50