Karnataka High Court
Shivananda K S vs Raghuram C A on 1 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13688
MFA No. 4072 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4072 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHIVANANDA K.S.,
S/O SIDDALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT KOTHAGERE VILLAGE,
KOTHAGERE HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAGHURAM C.A.
C/O THOUSIF ALI KHAN,
AGED ABOUT YEARS,
NO.D2, LIVE-IN-STYLE,
Digitally POTTARY ROAD, FRAZER TOWN,
signed by BANGALORE- 560 005
SUVARNA T
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Location:
KASTURI MANSION,
HIGH
COURT OF ABOVE CORPORATION BANK,
KARNATAKA BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES, M.G.ROD,
TUMKUR-572 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY Smt.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2
R1- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5204/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13688
MFA No. 4072 of 2016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 'DISMISSAL', THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition in
MVC.No.5204/2013 dated 08.04.2015 by the XVI Addl. Judge,
Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, the
appellant/claimant is before this Court.
2. The claimant had filed the petition under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of an
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. It
is the case of the claimant that on 12.05.2013 at 8.45 am., the
claimant was proceeding on a motor bike as a pillion rider. The
said motorcycle was ridden by one Muddegowda. When they
reached near under bridge of NH-75 New Bypass, Begur, at
that time, TVS XL Super came at very high speed in rash and
negligent manner and took sudden right turn and dashed
against the motor bike. Due to the impact, the claimant and
rider of the motor bike fell down and the claimant sustained
injuries. Immediately, the claimant was taken to CHC, Kunigal
and then, he was shifted to Adithya Orthopaedic and Trauma
NC: 2025:KHC:13688
Centre, Tumkur wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from
12.05.2013 to 10.06.2013. The claimant had sustained
communicated right tibial condyle fracture with vascular injury,
impleading compartment syndrome. The claimant underwent
surgery of right leg and ORIF with buttress plates fixation and
fasciotomy done and he was discharged with an advice of take
follow up treatment and bed rest and he had spent
Rs.1,35,000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal had
dismissed the claim petition observing that according to PW1
that the rider Muddegowda sustained simple injuries in the
accident. The said injured kept quite for 16 days to report the
matter to police. The charge sheet does not disclose that the
complainant Muddegowda sustained any injury. The said
Muddegowda has not made any efforts to get back his
motorcycle immediately. The claimant has not produced the
wound certificate issued by CHC, Kunigal wherein he was
admitted. There are no details of date, time and place of
accident and vehicles involved therein in the medical records.
Oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and contents of Exs.P1 to 15
indicate that on 12.05.2013, the claimant met with a RTA and
sustained fracture injury, but the contents of police records and
NC: 2025:KHC:13688
medical records are inconsistent with the manner of accident
and involvement of TVS XL Super as deposed by the claimant.
The delay in lodging complaint is unexplained. The Tribunal also
observed that there were no damages to both the vehicles and
further, there was no chance of motorcycle lying in the place of
accident for 17 days and also no evidence as to sustaining of
injuries by the rider of motorcycle and by the rider of TVS XL.
Therefore, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the
said vehicle was not involved in the accident and accordingly,
dismissed the petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant
submits that when the medical records are consistence and also
pointing out at the negligence of the offending vehicle, the
Tribunal had failed to consider the same and dismissed the
petition. It is submitted that in fact, the claimant had
discharged his burden and the burden lies on the insurance
company which they failed to discharge and still the Tribunal
had dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/
Insurance Company submits that when the claimant had
admitted in the CHC, Kunigal hospital and later shifted to the
NC: 2025:KHC:13688
hospital at Tumkur, he has not filed the MLC register or any
other relevant documents before the Court. Ex.P.5, the wound
certificate only refers to RTA and no other details are found in
Ex.P.5. It is stated that the Tribunal had rightly observed about
the involvement of the vehicle, the discrepancies in charge
sheet and in the evidence of PW1 with regard to the injuries
sustained by Muddegowda and also the delay of 16 days in
filing the complaint, had rightly dismissed the petition and it is
submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the well
considered order passed by the Tribunal.
5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the material on record. In this case, the complaint is
given 16 days from the date of the accident. The rider of the
vehicle is one Muddegowda, according to the claimant, he had
sustained simple injuries. As per the FIR, it is not mentioned on
what reason the complaint is given after 16 days from the
accident, there is no explanation forthcoming. When there is
already a delay in filing the complaint, if the claimant had
sustained injuries and was admitted in the hospital, the MLC
register extract should have been placed before the Court. The
claimant had failed to place the same and considering the
NC: 2025:KHC:13688
delay, the case of PW1 and the discrepancy in the medical
records, the Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that
the claimant has failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle
in the accident. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
findings arrived at by the Tribunal are based on evidence and
no interference is called for.
6. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is
dismissed.
i. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records
to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order
passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.
ii. No costs.
iii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
BN
