Karnataka High Court
Raghunandan N vs The Managing Director on 3 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18637
MFA No. 1774 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1774 OF 2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
RAGHUNANDAN N.,
S/O. N.R. NAGARAJA,
AGED 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.252, DEVAVRINDA, 1ST FLOOR,
III CROSS, V MAIN ROAD,
CANARA BANK COLONY, NAGARABHAVI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K. V. SHYAMPRASADA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
Digitally M/S. VAISHNAVI PACKAGING (PVT) LTD.,
signed by
KAVYA R BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BEGUR ROAD,
Location:
High Court BENGALURU - 560 076.
of Karnataka
2. M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.31, TBR TOWER,
I CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD,
NEAR BENGALURU STOCK EXCHANGE,
BANGALORE - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18637
MFA No. 1774 of 2015
HC-KAR
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI K.R. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6069/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALURU,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is claimant's appeal against judgment and award
dated 19.11.2014 passed by the learned III Additional Senior
Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru,
(SCCH-18), (for short as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.6069/2012.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.05.2012 at
about 12.15 p.m., the petitioner was travelling in Tempo
traveller bearing Reg.No.KA-02-C-9178 as an employee of
Tesco Hindustan Service Centre, Bangalore. He met with an
NC: 2025:KHC:18637
HC-KAR
accident, due to rash and negligent driving of a LMV-Goods
Carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AB-4766, by its driver.
As a result of which, claimant sustained grievous injuries and
he has been suffering from permanent disability. With these
reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.
4. Respondent No.2-insurer in his written statement
denied the contentions of the claim petition and denied his
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 the necessary issues for its determination.
6. The claimant to prove his case examined 2
witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked 15 documents as
Exs.P1 to P15. Respondents examined 2 witnesses as RWs.1
and 2 and marked 10 documents as Exs.R1 to R10.
7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and
appreciating the evidence available on record, answered issue
Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. Since both the issues were
answered in the negative, the Tribunal has not considered issue
NC: 2025:KHC:18637
HC-KAR
Nos.3 and 4 and by the impugned judgment, dismissed the
claim petition. The same is challenged in the present appeal by
the claimant.
8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
9. The only question that arises for determination is:
"Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that accident
was not proved?
10. It is the evidence of PW.1 that incident had taken
place on 08.05.2012 at about 12.15 p.m. Admittedly, the
claimant was working in Tesco Hindustan Service Centre,
Whitefield, Bangalore, as a Financial Head. As per the evidence
of PW-1 as well as petition averments, immediately after the
accident, he was taken to Vydehi Hospital, at Bengaluru for
treatment. From that hospital he was shifted to Sharavathi
Hospital in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After following certain
procedures, he was shifted to Cauvery Orthopedic Centre,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Again in the said hospital, certain
procedures were done and at last he was shifted to Hosmat
Hospital. The records reveal that information of the accident
NC: 2025:KHC:18637
HC-KAR
was first time given to the concerned Police Station on
02.06.2012. Reasons for the delay is mentioned in the FIR and
it is stated that the concerned owner of the vehicle assured the
claimant that he would pay the treatment expenses and
thereafter, he did not pay it. Thereafter, the claimant filed the
complaint. The FIR also reveals that he was unaware about the
name and where about of the owner as well as the registration
number of the said vehicle. Under these circumstances, the
contention of the claimant that he believed the version of the
owner of the said vehicle that he would pay the medical
expenses is also not a believable story.
11. As per the petition averments as well as the
evidence of PW-1, he was visiting different hospital for
treatment till 18.06.2012. As per the evidence of RW-2, none of
the hospitals have sent the information to the police regarding
the incident.
12. Normally, in case of treatment of victims of MLC
cases, the concerned hospital would enquire regarding history
and note down in the MLC registers. They also intimate to the
concerned police. In this case, claimant did not produce any
NC: 2025:KHC:18637
HC-KAR
such records to prove his case. The matter was pending before
the Tribunal for nearly about two years and nothing prevented
the appellant from producing the said relevant documents. The
Tribunal in detail considered all these facts and held that
contention of the claimant that he sustained injuries in the
vehicle accident is not believable. Even in this appeal, the
appellant has not produced any documents or materials to
substantiate his contentions. Therefore, there is no reason to
hold that the finding of the Tribunal is incorrect, arbitrary and
unjustifiable.
13. In view of the said reasons, claimant/appellant has
failed to prove that he sustained injury in a vehicle accident,
involving the vehicle mentioned supra. From the said
discussion, I answer above point in the negative.
14. For the reasons discussed above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:18637
HC-KAR
ii. Impugned judgment and award dated
19.11.2014 passed in MVC No.6069/2012
by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge
and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) is
confirmed.
iii. Send back TCR with copy of judgment to
trial Court.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
AMA
