Karnataka High Court
Raghavendra vs Shoukath on 7 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 640 OF 2021 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 681 OF 2020 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 640/2021
BETWEEN:
RAGHAVENDRA
S/O SHYAMUSHETTIGAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R.AT GOOJINAKUDIGE,
SARA VILLAGE, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK,
NOW AT MILAGHATTA,
SHIVAMOGGA CITY-277 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.V. MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AND:
ANNAPURNA G
Location: HIGH 1. SHOUKATH
COURT OF S/O ABDUL WAZID,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R.AT BYPASS NEARBY MYTHRI COLLEGE,
NANJAPPA LAYOUT,
SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577 201.
2. UMESH K.
S/O KAPINAYYA,
MAJOR IN AGE
R.AT. B. BAPUJI NAGAR,
6TH CROSS,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
B.H. ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
4. KIRAN KUMAR
R.AT 1ST CROSS,
KAMAKSHI STREET,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. B.C. SEETHARAM RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3(VC),
R1 AND R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED,
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.01.2024,
NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.03.09.2019 PASSED
IN MVC NO.90/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, AMACT-VII, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 681/2020
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
B.H. ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA CITY.
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
NATIONAL INSURANACE COMPANY LTD.,
MOTOR CLAIMS HUB,
NO.144, II FLOOR,
SUBHARAM COMPLEX,
M G ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560 001,
REP. BY ITS ASSITANT MANAGER
SMT. SANDHYA RANI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C. SEETHARAM RAO, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O SHYAMASHETTIGAR,
RESIDENT OF GOOJINAKUDIGE,
SARA VILLAGE, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK,
NOW AT MILAGHATTA,
SHIVAMOGGA CITY.
2. MR.SHOUKATH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O MR. ABDUL WAZID,
OCC: GARAGE WORKER,
RESIDENT OF BYE-PASS,
NEAR: MYTHRI COLLEGE,
NANJAPPA LAYOUT,
SHIVAMOGGA CITY,
(RIDER OF MOTOR CYCLE)
3. SRI. UMESH K
MAJOR IN AGE,
S/O KAPINAIAH,
B. BAPUJINAGAR
6TH CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA
(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO KA 14/EB-7825)
4. SRI. KIRAN KUMAR
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDENT OF I CROSS,
KAMAKSHI STREET,
SHIVAMOGGA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V. MAHESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
VIDE ORDER DATED 20.02.2024, NOTICE TO R4 IS
HELD SUFFICIENT,
R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.,
ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.90/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, C.J.M AND
ADDITIONAL MACT-VII, SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,03,562/- WITH INTEREST AT 6
PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL THE
DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.10.2025, COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV COMMON JUDGMENT
Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and
award dated 03.09.2019 in MVC.No.90/2015 passed by the I
Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., & Additional Mact-
VII, Shivamogga (for short 'Tribunal').
2. MFA.No.681/2020 is filed by the insurer and
MFA.No.640/2021 is filed by the claimant. Hence, both the
appeals are taken up together for disposal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, on
15.09.2013 at about 1.30 p.m., the claimant was traveling
as a pillion rider on his motor cycle bearing registration
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
No.KA-14-CE-2854 and his friend one Annappa was riding it.
They met with an accident opposite to Eshwara Temple,
Arakere, Shivamogga, due to rash and negligent riding of the
motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-14-EB-7825 (for
short offending vehicle). As a result, both the rider and the
pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. The claimant
being pillion rider suffered permanent disability due to the
injuries sustained in the accident. With these reasons, he
prayed to award compensation of Rs.28,00,000/-.
4. Respondent No.1 was the rider, respondent No.2
was the owner and respondent No.3 was the insurer of the
offending motor cycle. Respondent No.3 denied the
contentions of the claim petitioner. It also filed additional
objections contending that the offending vehicle was falsely
implicated in this case to claim compensation. It denied its
liability to pay the compensation. With these reasons,
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the
Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
6. The claimant to prove his case examined two
witnesses as PW-1 and CW-1 and marked 16 documents, as
Exs.P-1 to P-16. The respondent examined one witness as
RW-1 and marked document as Ex.R1.
7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties held
that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of
the offending motor cycle by its rider and awarded following
amount of compensation:
SL.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.)
1. Medical expenses 26,882
2. Pain and suffering 25,000
3. Attendant charges, food and 20,000
nutritious food and other
miscellaneous and conveyance
expenses
4. Loss of future income due to 1,03,680
disability
5.. Loss of income during laid up 18,000
period (6,000x3)
6. Future medical expenses 10,000
Total 2,03,562
8. The Tribunal also held that respondent Nos.2 and
3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel
appearing for both the sides.
10. The following point emerges for my
determination:
i. Whether accident occurred due to
involvement of the offending vehicle as contended
in the petition?
ii. Whether claimant is entitled to enhancement
of compensation?
iii. What order?
11. PW-1 is the alleged victim of the accident. In his
evidence, he has reiterated the petition averments and he
has produced the documents at Exs.P1-P16. The petitioner
also examined the medical officer as CW-1 and 3 documents
were marked as CWs-1 to 3. CW-1 corroborated the
evidence of PW-1 in respect of injuries and permanent
disability suffered by PW-1.
12. PW-1, in his cross-examination, stated that he
was a pillion rider on his own motorcycle, which was being
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
ridden by his brother-in-law, Annappa. The accident occurred
in front of Sahyadri Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital of
Arakare Village. Initially, PW-1 stated that Annappa did not
sustain any injuries; but, he later stated that Annappa
suffered minor injuries. PW-1 further stated that immediately
after the accident, he was taken to Sahyadri Narayana
Hrudayalaya Hospital by an auto driver, and he informed the
doctor about the manner in which the accident occurred and
how he sustained his injuries. PW-1 admitted that the
accident occurred due to a collision between two vehicles. He
also mentioned that he got discharged from Narayana
Hospital against medical advice. Later that night, he was
shifted to Wenlock Hospital at Mangaluru by his mother,
brother-in-law Annappa, and his uncle. At Wenlock Hospital,
he gave the history of the accident. PW-1 lodged the
complaint 86 days after the accident. He explained the delay
by stating that the rider of the offending motorcycle had
assured him that he would bear the medical expenses, due
to the same he did not file a complaint immediately.
However, when the rider of offending vehicle failed to pay
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
the compensation, he decided to lodge the complaint. He
also stated that the offending vehicle hit his motorcycle from
behind, causing it to be thrown forward about 100 feet,
leading to both of them falling down. He denied the
suggestion that he had told the doctors at Wenlock Hospital
that he sustained injuries due to his motorcycle skidding. It
was suggested to him during cross-examination that he was
riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident and that he
fell due to a skid, and that he falsely implicated the offending
motorcycle in order to claim compensation ,which was denied
by him. PW-1 further stated that on the day of the accident,
the police seized his motorcycle, and while he was admitted
at Wenlock Hospital, his relative got the motorcycle released
from the police station.
13. During the cross-examination, PW-1 answered
several questions which created doubt on his credibility.
14. CW-1 was examined through Court
Commissioner. He stated the details of the treatment
provided to PW-1 and also confirmed that the claimant has
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
suffered permanent disability to the extent of 28% to the
whole body. In his cross-examination, he admitted that, at
the instance of the insured, he did not send an intimation to
the concerned police station by registering the case as an
MLC. In further cross-examination, he denied the
suggestions of the learned advocate for Respondent No. 3.
15. Ex.P7 is given by Sahyadri Narayana Hrudayalaya
Multi Speciality Hospital, wherein history of the injury is
stated as "15.09.2013 at 12.45 noon", however, the details
of the accident are not mentioned.
16. Ex.P14 (discharge summary) and Ex.C1 - in-
patient case sheet) reveal that the patient gave a history of
the accident as a skid and fall from the bike on 15.09.2013
at 12:00 PM at Shivamogga. In the pleadings or evidence of
PW-1, there is no explanation as to why a different version of
the injury was given to the doctor at Wenlock Hospital,
Mangaluru, on 16.09.2013. It is also not the evidence of CW-
1 that PW-1 was unconscious or unable to give a proper
history due to the pain. PW-1 appears to have given the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
history of injuries both at Sahyadri Narayana Hrudayalaya
and at Wenlock Hospital. But, the records from Wenlock
Hospital do not indicate that the accident occurred due to the
involvement of the offending motorcycle.
17. During the course of arguments, even when the
Court enquired, the learned counsel for the claimant
regarding the said inconsistencies he was unable to give any
explanation about it. It raises serious doubts about the
involvement of the offending motorcycle in the accident.
18. The accident occurred on 15.09.2013, at around
12.45 pm on the main road. The petitioner or the rider of
the motor cycle or any other eye witness did not inform
about the accident to the police. PW-1 in his cross-
examination admits that on the day of accident his motor
cycle was seized by the police and on the next day his
relatives took the custody of the vehicle from the police
station. This clearly shows that the police were aware of the
accident on the very same day. It is difficult to believe that
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
the police would seize the vehicle involved in the accident
without registering an FIR.
19. Undisputedly, the complaint - Ex.P2 was lodged
at the police station on 10.12.2013 by Shyamu shettigar, the
father of the claimant. According to Ex.P2, the rider of the
offending motorcycle informed the claimant that he would
bear the medical expenses and requested him not to lodge a
complaint immediately after the accident. But, later on, the
rider did not contact him or paid medical expenses,
therefore, the complaint was lodged on 10.12.2013. It is not
the claimant's case that the rider of the offending motorcycle
was a resident of the same village where the claimant
resides or well known person to him. Given these facts, it is
difficult to believe that the claimant or his parents would
trust an unknown person and fail to report the accident to
the nearest police station, especially when the claimant
sustained grievous injuries.
20. The claimant has not produced motor vehicle
inspection report. According to the evidence of PW-1,
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
offending motor vehicle hit the motor cycle from back side
due to the impact his motor cycle went ahead about 100 feet
and thereafter fell down.
21. It is worth to note that rider of the motor cycle by
name Annappa, did not sustain any injuries, despite the
alleged hard impact by the offending vehicle on the
motorcycle on which both were traveling. No evidence was
given by PW-1 regarding the seizure of the vehicle belonging
to respondent No.2. The above said facts raises serious
doubts regarding the manner in which the accident occurred.
As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the insurer,
the story of the accident appears to be fabricated. Mere filing
of a charge sheet against the rider of the offending
motorcycle is not sufficient to accept the claimant's version
of the accident and award compensation. As submitted by
the insurer collusion between claimant and owner of alleged
offending vehicle cannot be ruled out. The facts narrated
above clearly indicate possible collusion between the
claimant and Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
22. The medical records show that the claimant
informed the medical officer that he skidded and fell from the
motorcycle, which appears to be the true account of the
incident, as reflected in the Wenlock Hospital records. It
seems that the claimant fabricated the story of the accident
solely to claim compensation. The Tribunal has failed to
properly consider the evidence on record. The filing of a
charge sheet by the police alone is not a valid reason to
accept the contention of the claimant or the police When the
contentions of the claimant is doubtful. It is true that in
normal circumstances, the Tribunal may accept the charge
sheet as prima facie proof of the accident. But in this case,
there is sufficient material, including admissions by PW-1 and
CW-1 during cross-examination, to disbelieve the allegations
of charge sheet. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated
the said evidence and decided the case.
23. The motor vehicle compensation is a benevolent
legislation aimed at compensating the victims of the
accident. Under those circumstances, the finding of the
Tribunal is erroneous, which needs interference by this Court.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45137
MFA No. 640 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020
HC-KAR
24. Since the claimant failed to prove that he
sustained injury in the vehicle accident, respondent No.3 is
not liable to pay the compensation. Therefore impugned
judgment and award is set aside and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. MFA.No.681/2020 is allowed.
ii. MFA.No.640/2021 stands dismissed.
iii. The impugned judgment and award dated 03.09.2019 passed by the I Addl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Additional MACT-VII, Shivamogga in MVC.No.90/2015 is set aside.
iv. The claimant petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, is dismissed.
v. Amount in deposit, if any, by the appellant in MFA.No.681/2020 shall be transmitted to Tribunal for refund to the insurer, on due acknowledgement.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45137 MFA No. 640 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 681 of 2020 HC-KAR Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with the copy of the judgment to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG