Karnataka High Court
Shivaji Namadev Aladar vs Hitesh on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
MFA No. 202592 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 202708 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202592 OF 2023 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202708 OF 2025(MV-D)
IN MFA NO.202592/2023:
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Digitally ...APPELLANT
signed by
SUMITRA (BY SRI. S S ASPALLI, ADVOCATE)
SHERIGAR
Location: AND:
HIGH COURT
OF 1. SHIVAJI NAMADEV ALADAR
KARNATAKA AGE 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
2. MARUTI SHIVAJI ALADAR
AGE 29 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
3. BALU SHIVAJI ALADAR
AGE 27 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
ALL ARE R/O KOLA (KARADWADI)
SANGOLA TALUK
SOLAPUR DISTRICT - 413 007.
4. HITESH NAMDEO ALADAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
MFA No. 202592 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 202708 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGE MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE & OWNER OF MOTOR
CYCLE NO. MH-45/U-8575
R/O SHIVCHAYA HOUSING SOCIETY
MIRAJ ROAD, SANGOLA
SOLAPUR DISTRICT - 413 007.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANTH LAXMAN, ADV. FOR R1 TO
R3; R4 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO A)
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO. 140/2015 DATED 02-08-
2021 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
NO.XV. B) SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02-08-
2021 IN MVC NO.140/2015 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XV BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL.
IN MFA NO.202708/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAJI NAMADEV ALADAR
AGE 54 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE
2. MARUTI SHIVAJI ALADAR
AGE 31 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
3. BALU SHIVAJI ALADAR
AGE 29 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
ALL ARE R/O KOLA (KARADWADI)
TQ. SANGOLA, DIST. SOLAPUR-413 314.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANTH LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
MFA No. 202592 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 202708 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. HITESH
S/O. NAMDEO ALADAR,
AGE MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE
OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.MH-45/U-8575,
R/O SHIVCHAYA HOUSING SOCIEYT MIRAJ ROAD
SANGOLA, TQ. SANGOLA,
DIST. SOLAPUR-413 007.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
S.S FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S S ASPALLI, FOR R2; R1 IS DEEMED TO BE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
02.08.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 140/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XV,
VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY Rs.14,91,800/-
ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 18.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The tribunal passed an award dated 02.08.2021 in MVC No.140/2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XV, Vijayapura (for short 'the tribunal'). -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934 MFA No. 202592 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202708 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. One Smt. Jamunabai met with accident on 17.12.2014 and succumbed to the injuries. Her husband and sons i.e. claimant Nos.1 to 3 filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.22,50,000/- before the tribunal. The tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.7,58,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and award, the Insurance company filed MFA No.202592/2023 and submitted that, on 17.12.2014 Jamunabai was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-45/U-8575 as pillion rider. The rider of the motorcycle driven the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died on 20.12.2014 while undergoing treatment. It is contended that, the complaint is given with a delay of 23 days and the reasons for delay is not explained. The complaint was filed as an afterthought and with malafide intention to claim the compensation. The claimants examined P.W.2 as an eyewitness, but he was not shown as eyewitness -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934 MFA No. 202592 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202708 of 2025 HC-KAR in the charge-sheet. The police have not recorded the statement of P.W.2 and he was never shown the spot of the accident to the police. The complaint is filed on 09.01.2015 at 16.35 hours and the spot of the accident is 35 kilometers away from the police station, but the spot mahazar was done on the same day between 16.52 to 17.20 hours, which is not possible considering the distance from the police station to the spot of the accident. The owner of the motorcycle is none other than brother of the claimant No.1 and the deceased is the wife of the claimant No.1. The complainant is the son of the deceased. Rider of the motorcycle is the brother-in-law of the claimant Nos.2 and 3 and they have falsely implicated the motorcycle. Therefore, the award passed by the MACT is liable to be set aside.
3. Another appeal in MFA No.202708/2025 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. They contended that, deceased Jamunabai was earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month by doing coolie work, but the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased Jamunabai as 7,500/- and the amounts granted under the other heads are -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934 MFA No. 202592 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202708 of 2025 HC-KAR also meager. Further it is submitted that, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses and 40% is to be added towards future prospects and 9% interest on the compensation amount is to be awarded and thus, requested for enhancement of the compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance company contended that, the accident has occurred on 17.12.2014. She took treatment from 17.12.2014 to 20.12.2024 and succumbed to the injures on 20.12.2014. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The policy was in existence as on the date of the accident. The complaint was given on 09.01.2015 i.e. after 23 days. P.W.1 is not the eyewitness to the occurrence of the accident. They have not produced medical records from the Primary Health Center. The police have not recorded statements of the witnesses on the date of the accident. P.W.2 who is an eyewitness to the incident has admitted that, he visited the spot after five days of the accident and there was no vehicle on the spot. As per Ex.P.4
- IMV report, the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects. Ex.P.5 is the cause of death certificate, -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934 MFA No. 202592 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202708 of 2025 HC-KAR in which it is mentioned that, the death is due to head injury. Even in Ex.P.8-P.M.Report it is stated that, the deceased died due to head injury. The tribunal relied upon a citation reported in 2011 (4) SCC 693 between Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others, wherein, it is held that, the delay in filing the FIR is not sufficient ground for dismissal of the case of the claimants. But the Insurance company has contended that, the rider of the motorcycle is the brother-in- law of the claimant Nos.2 and 3 and owner of the motorcycle is the brother of the claimant No.1 and Jamunabai is the wife of the claimant No.1. The complaint was given after 23 days by impleading the vehicle bearing registration No.MH-45/U- 8575. It was further argued that, the complaint is given on 09.01.2015 at about 16.35 hours. The spot mahazar was done on the same day between 16.50 hours to 17.20 hours, though the place of accident is at a distance of 35 kilometers from the police station.
5. In a citation reported in (2009) 1 KACJ 500 between Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another it was held as follows:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934 MFA No. 202592 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202708 of 2025 HC-KAR "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. 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 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934 MFA No. 202592 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202708 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
6. He relied upon a citation reported in MFA No.200941/2019 [Suresh S/o. Mahadev Vathar Vs. Siddarama and others] and argued that, the deceased Jamunabai sustained head injuries, but she did not met with accident on 17.12.2014 and she was not traveling as a pillion rider on the said motorcycle. They impleaded the vehicle after 23 days only to gain wrongfully. She was admitted in the hospital till 20.12.2024 and succumbed to the injuries. Even afterwards no complaint was given by the claimants. The delay in filing the complaint is not explained anywhere, therefore, this Court finds that it is clear case of implication of the vehicle after 23 days of the filing of the false
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934 MFA No. 202592 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202708 of 2025 HC-KAR complaint by the son of the deceased by duly implicating the vehicle of the relative which is insured with the Insurance company. The rider of the motorcycle is also a close relative/brother-in-law. No doubt, it is a beneficial legislation, but this Court should be cautious regarding involvement of the vehicles and fake claims. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that it is clear case of implication of the vehicle, as such, the claimants are not entitle for any compensation and the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
7. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the Insurance company i.e. MFA No.202592/2023 is allowed;
(ii) The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.202708/2025 is dismissed;
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
MFA No. 202592 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 202708 of 2025
HC-KAR
(iii) The amount deposited by the
Insurance company shall be refunded to the Insurance company;
sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT:RJ