Karnataka High Court

Parwati vs Arun And Anr on 20 March, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753
                                                     MFA No. 202422 of 2018




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                           BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI

                           MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202422/2018(MV-I)

                   BETWEEN:

                   PARWATI W/O SOPAN KOLI,
                   AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                   R/O BAWACHI, TQ. MANGALWEDA,
                   NOW RESIDING AT GANESH NAGAR,
                   VIJAYAPUR-586 103.
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA      1.   ARUN S/O SIDARAM KOLI,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI                   AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                A/P BORALE, TQ. MANGALWEDA,
KARNATAKA
                        DIST. SOLAPUR-431 401,
                        NOW RESIDING AT GANESH NAGAR,
                        VIJAYAPUR-586 103.

                   2.   THE BRANCH MANAGER,
                        UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                        1ST FLOOR, SANGAM BUILDING,
                        S.S. FRONT ROAD,
                        VIJAYAPUR-586 101,
                                                              ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE, FOR R2;
                   R1- NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
                                 -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753
                                        MFA No. 202422 of 2018




     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.08.2018
PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IV, VIJAYPUR IN MVC NO.1443/2014 AND
ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI


                       ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI)

1. Though this appeal is slated for admission, with

the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final

disposal.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-petitioner and learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.

3. The petitioner in MVC No.1443/2014, who

suffered dismissal of the same at the hands of the III

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753

Additional District Judge and M.A.C.T., Vijayapura, has

approached this Court in this appeal.

4. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner

are that on 09.10.2023 at about 5.30 p.m., when the

petitioner was pillion rider on the bike bearing No.MH-

13/Y-7741, another motorcycle bearing No.MH-13/BJ-

4782 came in rash and negligent manner from the

opposite direction and dashed to the motorcycle of the

petitioner. She suffered multiple injuries on the head and

parietal region and she was taken to Janakalyan Hospital,

Pandharpur, then to Gangamai Hospital, Solapur.

Claiming that she was aged about 50 years at the time of

accident and by working as a Coolie she was earning

Rs.7,500/- per month, she approached the Tribunal

seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of the

offending motorcycle.

5. On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not

appear before the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753

Insurance Company appeared and filed its written

statement. Though the Insurance Company admitted

coverage of the insurance policy, it was alleged that the

petitioner had colluded with respondent No.1 and the

police officials; and has played fraud to implicate the

motorcycle of respondent No.1. It was alleged that the

complaint was filed before the Police after more than 2½

months of the accident and the delay was not explained

properly. It was contended that the rider of the offending

motorcycle was a person known to the petitioner and

therefore, the delay in filing the complaint tells a tale that

it is a case of false implication. Apart from that, it was

contended that the terms and conditions of the policy were

violated and therefore, it's liability to pay the

compensation be absolved.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings,

appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal, the

petitioner was examined as PW1 and two witnesses were

examined on her behalf as PWs.2 and 3. Exs.P1 to P18

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753

were marked in support of the petition. Respondent No.2

produced the insurance policy and the same was marked

as Ex.R1.

7. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the

Tribunal held that the accident has not been proved and

therefore dismissed the petition.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is

before this Court in appeal.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

petitioner would submit that the Wound Certificate, even

though mention that the injuries suffered by the petitioner

was due to 'fall from bike', the other documents including

the investigation papers show that there was an accident.

When the respondent No.1 has not challenged this

investigation and the charge-sheet, the same holds good

and it should not have been discarded by the Tribunal. He

contends that, the delay in filing the FIR is explained

properly and therefore, the conclusions of the Tribunal are

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753

not correct. He points out that no rebuttal evidence has

been lead by the respondent Nos.1 or 2 and when the

respondent No.1 did not appear and denied the accident, it

was not proper on the part of the Tribunal to dismiss the

petition.

10. Per contra, Smt.Sangeetha Bhadrashetty,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would

submit that in the cross-examination of the PW.1 she

admits that the respondent No.1 is her relative. If at all

the respondent No.1 was known to her as a relative,

nothing prevented the petitioner or the respondent No.1 to

report the same to the police at the earliest point of time.

Therefore, the knowledge of PW.1 about respondent No.1

having committed the accident, and such acquaintance of

the respondent No.1 having not been mentioned anywhere

else shows that the conduct of the respondent No.1 is not

believable. Therefore, she contends that the testimony of

the PW.1 is also not reliable. It is further submitted that

the eyewitness to the accident also did not file any

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753

complaint to the police and therefore, the impugned

judgment of the Tribunal is proper and no interference is

required.

11. The MLC records of the hospital show that

petitioner went to Gangamai hospital, Solapur on

10.10.2023 and her son Ramesh had admitted her to the

hospital. The history furnished was that she fell from the

bike due to giddiness. It is relevant to note that she was

taken to Gangamai hospital on 10.10.2013 and the

accident had occurred on 09.10.2023. At the earliest point

of time, the collision by another motorcycle was not

mentioned. This raises doubt about the involvement of the

vehicle.

12. The perusal of the impugned judgment would

show that in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 the Tribunal

observed as below:

"12) I.A.No.V was filed to issue summons to the Hospital to produce documents. Accordingly, PW.2

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753

produced Ex.P.15 authorization letter and Ex.P.16 entire case sheet maintained by Gangamai Hospital, Solapur, MLC certificate forthcoming from the said case sheet is in Marathi. One of the Doctor's notes is also in Marathi. Claimant was directed to file translated copies and said documents. Claimant's counsel filed copies of entire case sheet along with translation of said documents and translator's affidavit on 20.07.2018. Medico Legal Certificate particulars disclose that, the patient went to the Gangamai Hospital, Solapur on 10.10.2013 at 12-45 a.m., case was registered as MLC.No.450. Her son Ramesh Koli admitted her and history was furnished that, claimant sustained injuries on 09.10.2013 at 6-

00 p.m. near Borale Naka, Mangalaweda when she suffered from giddiness and fell down from bike while proceeding.

13) Above discussed facts establish that, claimant's son was not seriously injured. He lodged no complaint. No complaint was lodged for 70 days and more after the accident. Alleged bike which caused the accident was not seized. History furnished before the Gangamal Hospital, Solapur while admitting the claimant establishes that, claimant suffered from giddiness, fell down from bike and sustained injuries. Spot mahazar discloses that, accident was taken place when bike was about to pass speed breaker in

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753

the city. Though, rider of the bike belonging to respondent No.1 is admittedly relative of claimant, claimant and her son were not able to identify him and his bike. Why history was furnished to Gangamai Hospital, Solapur while admitting the claimant that, she suffered from giddiness, fell down from bike and sustained injuries remained unexplained. Insurance company raised objection that, case is based on created story, bike is falsely implicated and fraud is played.. In view of the history furnished to the Hospital, claimant has failed to prove the alleged accident. Though police have filed charge sheet against the rider of insured bike, charge sheet is not conclusive proof and allegations made therein needs proof like any other facts. Claimant herein failed to discharge initial burden to prove the alleged accident. It appears that, she sustained injuries under the circumstances forthcoming from MLC particulars and later on bike is falsely implicated after thought and due deliberation. Though case was registered as MLC, no police visited the Hospital and enquired the claimant. Claimant's counsel has relied upon the [2007 Kant MAC 739 (Kant)] Kumar Shubham Vs. Siddalingappa and another and AIR 2011 SC 1226 Ravi Vs. Badarinarayan contending that, delay is not a sole ground to dismiss the claim petition."

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1753

13. The petitioner or PW.2 having not explained as

to why complaint was not lodged at the earliest point of

time and as to why the name of the respondent No.1 was

not disclosed raised serious doubt about the claim that the

motorcycle owned by this respondent No.1 was involved in

the accident. If at all it was hit by offending motorcycle,

definitely that should have been mentioned in the MLC

report of the hospital. The word 'giddiness' mentioned in

the records shows that there was no such collision by

another vehicle.