- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8500 MFA No. 7074 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. 7074 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, WEST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASHOK S/O VENKATARAMAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O AT MUTTON MARKET ROAD, BOVI COLONY, MALUR TOWN, KOLAR DISTIRCT - 563 101. 2. S. SHIVARAM @ SHIVA S/O M. SANJEEVAPPA, MAJOR, R/O NO.83, RANGAPPA STREET, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BANGALORE - 560 004. 3. SRI.VENKATARAMAPPA MAJOR, S/O VENKATAPPA (SINCE DEAD BY LR) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8500 MFA No. 7074 of 2015 SMT.RAMADEVI, MAJOR, W/O VENKATARAMAPPA, R/O MUTTON MARKET ROAD, BOVI COLONY, MALUR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. P.S. KAILASH SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 24.08.2021, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5094/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND XXVI ACMM, (SCCH-09) BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,55,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.01.2026, 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 insurance company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 15.07.2015 passed in MVC - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8500 MFA No. 7074 of 2015 No.5094/2013 on the file of the Court of Small Causes and XXVI ACMM, (SCCH-09), Bengaluru. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner/injured claimant had filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.4,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization and held that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company preferred this appeal. 4. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the facts and erred in fixing liability against the respondents and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. As per the MLC extract and the medical records, it is clear that the petitioner while going as a pillion rider on a motorcycle was hit by a lorry. But the Tribunal held that the accident occurred - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8500 MFA No. 7074 of 2015 only due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, which finding is improper and liable to be set aside. 5. As per the discharge summary marked at Ex.R.1, the motorcycle was hit by a lorry and there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle on which the injured was travelling. PW-3, in his cross-examination has clearly stated that in Ex.P.8 it was initially written as 'hit by lorry,' which was later erased and written as 'skid and fall'. This clearly shows that the medical records were tampered and wrongful. There was delay in lodging the complaint, which also shows false implication of the motorcycle. Even as on date, the police have not filed any charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, it is evident that the rider was not responsible for causing the accident. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 6. The petitioner-Ashok, aged 21 years, met with an accident on 01.06.2013. As per his case, he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-08-R- 3547 and the rider of the said motorcycle rode it in a rash and negligent manner, causing the vehicle to skid. As a result, he - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8500 MFA No. 7074 of 2015 fell down from the motorcycle and sustained injuries, for which he was hospitalized. 7. Notice was issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.3 appeared through counsel and filed a written statement denying the petitioner averments including the offending motorcycle was insured with it and the insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident. It also denied the manner in which the accident took place and rash and negligent riding of the offending motorcycle. It was further contended that the accident did not occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. Respondent No.3 stated that the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving licence, which amounts to violation of the policy conditions and therefore, it is not liable to indemnify respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending motorcycle, died during the pendency of the petition and his legal heir was brought on record as respondent No.2(a). She filed a written statement and admitted the accident. 8. PW-1 is the injured claimant and PW-2 is the mother of PW-1. PW-2 stated that one Shiva called her and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8500 MFA No. 7074 of 2015 informed that he and the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident. She further stated that Shiva was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident and in order to avoid a lorry coming from the opposite direction, the motorcycle was driven towards the ditch, as a result of which both of them fell down and sustained injuries. But in the medical records it was wrongly mentioned that a lorry dashed against the motorcycle, though lorry was not involved in the accident. 9. The petitioner produced Ex.P.1 the complaint; Ex.P.2 is the intimation given by the police regarding the accident and Ex.P.3 is the spot mahazar. The IMV report is marked as Ex.P.5, the discharge summary as Ex.P.6 and the emergency case record as Ex.P.7. The medical certificate is marked as Ex.P.8. Ex.P.14 is the driving licence of respondent No.1, the insurance policy is marked as Ex.P.15, the B-extract as Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.19 is the driving licence extract. 10. Respondent No.2 examined the Deputy Manager as RW-1. He stated that as per the hospital records, the petitioner was hit by a lorry while travelling as a pillion rider. He further stated that about one day after the accident, a false complaint - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8500 MFA No. 7074 of 2015 was lodged alleging negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. It was contended that, as per Ex.P.1 and the spot mahazar, the motorcycle had skidded due to the negligence of its rider and the pillion rider sustained injuries. As per the MLC extract and hospital records, the petitioner sustained injuries while travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle after hit by a lorry and not due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. RW-1 further contended that certain alterations were found in the medical records. In Ex.R.1-discharge summary, it was recorded as "RTA-hit by lorry while going in a two-wheeler as a pillion rider". Whereas, in other documents produced before the Tribunal, it was recorded as "RTA due to skid and fall from a two-wheeler while going as a pillion rider". In fact, the petitioner was hit by a lorry, but since the identity of the lorry was not traced, a false case was filed against the rider of the motorcycle on the next day after the accident. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the rider of the motorcycle did not sustain any injuries and was not examined before the Court for the reasons best known to the petitioner. It is further contended that as per Ex.P.7, it is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8500 MFA No. 7074 of 2015 recorded that the petitioner sustained injuries while going as a pillion rider, due to skid and fall and there is no entry regarding 'hit by a lorry' in any of the hospital records. It is also contended that the rider of the motorcycle had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Respondent No.2 was the owner of the offending vehicle and the father of the petitioner, died during the pendency of the petition and thereafter his wife was brought on record as his legal heir. Subsequently, documents including the insurance policy and driving licence were produced, contending that the rider of the motorcycle was holding a valid driving licence. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly relied upon the medical records in Ex.P.7-emergency case record dated 02.06.2013, wherein the date of injury is mentioned as 01.06.2013 and it is recorded as "Alleged RTA two-wheeler pillion rider, skid and fall" and the Pulse Hospital issued a letter stating that the petitioner was admitted with a history of RTA due to skid and fall while going in a two-wheeler as a pillion rider at around 08.30 p.m. on 01.06.2013 near Sarjapur. But there was whitener at the place of “skid and fall” and the said - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8500 MFA No. 7074 of 2015 document is marked at Ex.P.8. Even in the inpatient records of Pulse Hospital, it is mentioned that the petitioner sustained injury to the right thigh due to RTA "skid and fall" and there was whitener under the skid and fall. RW.1 in his evidence has clearly stated that no charge sheet has been filed against the rider of the motorcycle and no notice was issued either to the owner or to the rider of the alleged offending motorcycle. 13. The petitioner examined PW.3, the Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon of Pulse Multi Specialty Hospital. In his cross-examination, PW.3 admitted that as per Ex.R.1, the petitioner sustained injuries while going as a pillion rider on a motorcycle which was hit by a lorry. Ex.P.8 was issued by the duty doctor, wherein initially it was written as "hit by a lorry", but the same was later erased using whitener and written as "skid and fall". PW.3 further stated that once a patient is admitted and discharged, they will only issue one discharge summary. However, in the present case, two discharge summaries were issued, marked as Ex.P.6 and Ex.R.1, wherein the nature of the accident is shown differently. He also deposed that the history of the accident is entered based on the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8500 MFA No. 7074 of 2015 statement given by the patient or his attendant at the time of admission in the hospital. In Ex.P.11 initially recorded as “hit by a lorry,” which was subsequently erased and written as “skid and fall.” The evidence of PW.3 clearly shows that the medical records were tampered. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the case of Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another1 it was held as follows: "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 if 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 1 (2009) 1 KACJ 500 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8500 MFA No. 7074 of 2015 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). 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8500 MFA No. 7074 of 2015 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." 15. Though the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, it is the duty of the Courts not only to see that reasonable and just compensation is granted to claimants and but also there is no abuse of the process of law. In the present case, the medical records are clearly tampered. As per the medical records, the petitioner, who was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, met with an accident due to hit by a lorry. As the said lorry was not identified, the history of the accident was subsequently modified as “skid and fall” in the medical records and a charge sheet was filed against the rider of the motorcycle. The owner of the motorcycle was none other than the father of the petitioner and as he died during the pendency of the proceedings, his mother was impleaded as a party to the proceedings and the rider of the motorcycle was - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8500 MFA No. 7074 of 2015 not examined before the Tribunal and had not sustained any injuries in the accident. All these facts clearly go to show that it is a case of implication of the vehicle to wrongfully gain compensation from the insurance company. 16. Therefore, respondent No.3-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. However, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.4,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.2(a) are directed to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. Any amount deposited by respondent No.3-Insurance Company shall be refunded to it. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 104