- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8483 MFA No. 1429 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1429 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. SHANTHAMMA V W/O MALLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O SAI NAGAR, NERALURU VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 560 105. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., REGD OFFICE IFFCO SADAN, C1. DISTT. CENTER SAKET, NEW DELHI - 110 017. BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.41, 2ND FLOOR, NEXT TO MONDOVI MOTORS CRISTO COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 01. 2. S. SURESH R/O NO.34, 8TH MAIN, VIRATANAGAR, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8483 MFA No. 1429 of 2015 BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.02.2020, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 1.7.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.4487/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 16TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 30.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 01.07.2014 passed in MVC No.4487/2011 on the file of the XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bangalore. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8483 MFA No. 1429 of 2015 No.1/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 26.04.2011 and had filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Trial Court considering the entire evidence on record dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider Exs.P.1 to P.5 documents filed by the appellant and also Exs.P.6 to P.14 regarding injuries sustained by her and dismissed the claim petition mainly on the ground that there is a delay of 82 days in lodging the complaint. It is further contended that the driver of the vehicle pleaded guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8483 MFA No. 1429 of 2015 5. The manner of the accident, as per the petition is that on 26.04.2011, the petitioner was going to her home and when she came near Neraluru gate, on NH-7 service road, the bike bearing No.KA-51-Y-8478 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner/injured claimant. As a result, she sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Sparsh Hospital, Bangalore, where she underwent surgery and was discharged on 09.05.2011. The petitioner/injured once again admitted in the same hospital on 10.05.2011 and took treatment for 48 days and discharged. She has spent Rs.1,60,000/- for medical expenses. She was running provisions store and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she became handicapped and could not perform her duties. Crime No.184/2011 was registered against the rider of the bike for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of IPC r/w Section 187 of MV Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8483 MFA No. 1429 of 2015 6. Respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the motorcycle. As such, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent No.1 contended that no insurance policy was issued in respect of the said motorcycle for the period from 11.04.2011 to 10.04.2012 and the said motorcycle was not involved in the accident. Respondent No.2 did not inform the insurer regarding the involvement of the vehicle and there was no negligence on the part of the rider. It is further contended that the petitioner was hit by an unknown vehicle and the compensation claim made is excessive and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner only. 7. PW.1–the petitioner stated in her cross- examination that she did not know the particulars of the vehicle which caused the accident. She further stated that one Kishor shifted her to the hospital and she lodged the FIR after a delay of 82 days from the date of the accident. She stated that the wife and mother of the said Kishor - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8483 MFA No. 1429 of 2015 have given her the details of the accident and she was searching for the vehicle, which resulted in the delay in lodging the FIR. It is also stated that Kishor was acquainted with the owner of the vehicle which caused the accident. The police registered a case in Crime No.184/2011 against the rider of the Suzuki motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-51-Y-8478. The police drawn panchanama on 19.07.2011 at the place of the offence and issued a requisition to the RTO on 23.07.2011 for inspection of the said vehicle. The IMV Inspector inspected the vehicle on the same day at 2.50 p.m. and noticed the following damages to the vehicle: 1. Head light doom scratches, 2. LH side clutch lever scratches 3. LH side crash guard scratches The brake system of the vehicle was in order and the damages were fresh. The accident was not due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. The petitioner stated that she sustained fracture of the second cervical spine and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8483 MFA No. 1429 of 2015 undisplaced fracture of the right acetabulum and the said injuries are grievous in nature. She was brought to the hospital by her daughter with a history of road traffic accident (RTA). 8. RW.1, who is the Assistant Manager of respondent No.1–Insurance Company, deposed that the insurance policy was issued in favour of respondent No.2 and was in force for the period from 11.04.2011 to 10.11.2012. Respondent No.2 did not intimate the insurer regarding the involvement of the insured vehicle in the alleged accident, which is mandatory under Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further contended that the police also failed to comply with the provisions of Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such, the said motorcycle was not involved in the accident and there is a delay of 82 days in lodging the complaint. PW.1 herself admitted that she could not identify either the vehicle or its registration number. According to RW.1, the accident is a hit-and-run case and the motorcycle has been falsely - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8483 MFA No. 1429 of 2015 implicated. It is further contended that the charge-sheeted rider and the insured are relatives of the petitioner. Though the petitioner’s daughter stated that the petitioner sustained injuries in a road traffic accident, but that does not mean that she was dashed by the Suzuki bike bearing registration No.KA-51-Y-8478. RW.1 further contended that the petitioner and her daughter had ample opportunity to lodge a complaint or FIR at the earliest point of time. But they kept quiet till 18.07.2011, for a period of 82 days. PW.1 admitted that she was discharged from the hospital on 09.05.2011, even afterwards she has not filed complaint. 9. PW.1 further stated that one Kishor, his wife, and his mother were aware of the accident. However, none of them informed the police about the accident, nor they examined before the Tribunal to substantiate the petitioner’s version. No independent eyewitness to the accident was examined. As per the IMV report dated 23.07.2011, the damages to the motorcycle were fresh. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8483 MFA No. 1429 of 2015 However, the accident is alleged to have occurred on 26.04.2011. The inspection of the vehicle was conducted only after lodging of the complaint, which was delayed by 87 days. According to RW.1, the finding of fresh damages in the IMV report goes against the case of the petitioner. 10. It is contended that there are material inconsistencies and defects in the evidence of PW.1 and the case is hit and run, wherein the Suzuki motorcycle has been falsely implicated only to claim compensation. On these grounds, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in appreciating the evidence on record. Admittedly, it is for the petitioner to prove the accident. Though the accident is occurred on 26.04.2011, the complaint was given after 87 days. Even petitioner herself stated that she was discharged from the hospital on 09.05.2011 and she has not given any reason for not lodging the complaint at least after 09.05.2011. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8483 MFA No. 1429 of 2015 11. It is further contended that neither the petitioner nor her daughter lodged any complaint with the police, nor did the hospital authorities intimate the police. Though PW.1 claimed that she came to know the details of the vehicle through Kishor and his wife and mother, none of them were examined before the Court. Hence, the Insurance Company contended that the petitioner met with an accident involving an unidentified vehicle and falsely implicated the insured motorcycle in order to wrongfully claim compensation. 12. The Insurance Company relied upon the decision of (2009) 1 KACJ 500 between Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another, wherein it was held as follows: "16. 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 trend of unholy alliance among the police, the doctors, the lawyers and some times even the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8483 MFA No. 1429 of 2015 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. 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 foisting the liability exclusively on the insured- owner of the vehicle. (Para 16). - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8483 MFA No. 1429 of 2015 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." 13. No doubt it is a beneficial legislation and it is for the Court to take lenient view while granting compensation to the victims. At the same time, it is for the Courts to see that there is no abuse of process of law and Courts are expected to safeguard the public money of the insurance company. The petitioner has not examined any eyewitness and no damage caused to the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly considered all the aspects and dismissed - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8483 MFA No. 1429 of 2015 the application. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 103