Karnataka High Court
Mahendra C vs Raju K.R on 21 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12002
MFA No. 7020 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7020 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
MAHENDRA C.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKARANGAIAH
@ CHIKKARANGAPPA,
R/O HARONAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJU K.R.
AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O RAMAIAH,
R/O KARESHANAIAHNA PALYA VILLAGE,
TAREDAKUPPE POST,
KOTTAGERE HOBLI,
Digitally signed KUNIGAL TALUK,
by MEGHA TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.
MOHAN
Location: HIGH 2. THE MANAGER
COURT OF ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
KARNATAKA NO.89, SVR COMPLEX,
II FLOOR, MADIVALA,
HOSUR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 68.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SMT. K.S.LAKSHMI NARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2012 PASSED IN
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12002
MFA No. 7020 of 2013
MVC.NO.735/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-1, ADDITIONAL MACT, TUMKUR, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant
aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.735/2011 dated
31.12.2012 by the Fast Track Court-I and Additional MACT,
Tumkur.
2. The claimant has filed the claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The facts of the case are that on
20.03.2011, the claimant along with his friend Shashidhara
were going on a motor cycle. When they reached near Seebi
Temple, Chikkaseebi, Bellavi Hobli. At that time, a motor bike
rode by its rider in high speed and rash and negligent manner
came from opposite direction and dashed against the motor
bike in which claimant was travelling. Due to that impact,
claimant fell down and sustained injuries. He was shifted to
District Government hospital, Tumkur for treatment. He was
admitted as inpatient for two days in the said hospital. He was
shifted to Victoria hospital, Bangalore, wherein he was admitted
NC: 2025:KHC:12002
as inpatient from 23.03.2011 to 11.04.2011. He underwent
operations. After discharged from the hospital, he took follow
up treatment. He had spent more than an amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses and he
has to spend an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical
expenses.
3. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company had opposed the
petition stating that the vehicle is not involved in the accident
and the complaint was filed after lapse of 5 days and there is
no explanation forthcoming for the said delay.
4. The Tribunal by way of order impugned had dismissed
the claim petition. While dismissing the claim petition, the
Tribunal had observed that PW.1 suppressed in the petition as
to who was riding the motor vehicle, in the cross examination,
he says that Shashidhara was riding the motor cycle. Police
recorded his statement in Victoria hospital. The said statement
is produced at Ex.P.5 and it shows that he was riding the motor
cycle and Shashidhara was pillion rider. Statement of
Shashidhara is also produced, however it is not marked. It
shows that the claimant was riding the motor cycle and
NC: 2025:KHC:12002
Shashidhara was pillion rider and the claimant knew that he
does not have driving license. The trial Court came to the
conclusion that the Police who investigated the case has not
enquired PW.1 about his driving license or noted in the charge
sheet that without holding driving license he was riding the
motor cycle. Considering the delay of 5 days particularly in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court came to the
conclusion that the claimant had failed to prove that the
accident has happened because of the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly
dismissed the petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the delay in filing the complaint cannot be the reason for
dismissing the application filed by the claimant. It is submitted
that the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court had considered the
delay in several cases and still entertained such petitions. It is
submitted that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of
the offending vehicle and that itself shows that the accident has
happened because of the negligence on the part of the driver of
the offending vehicle. All these aspects were not considered by
the trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:12002
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company
submits that the trial Court had considered the documentary as
well as the oral evidence available on record and rightly came
to the conclusion and dismissed the claim petition. It is
submitted that there are several inconsistencies in the evidence
of the parties and no interference is called for with the well
considered order passed by the Tribunal.
7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record. In this case, the
complaint is given after 5 days from the date of the accident.
Mere delay in filing the complaint cannot be a ground for the
Court to dismiss the application seeking compensation. But that
depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
According to the claimant, he has sustained grievous injuries.
He was unconscious and was taken to Government hospital. If
he was taken to the Government hospital, the MLC Register will
contain all these aspects. No such extract of MLC register is
placed before this Court. The medical records would be the best
evidence to be placed before the Court. In the absence of that,
the lapses on the part of the claimant in giving the complaint,
in addition to that, the manner in which the claimant has
NC: 2025:KHC:12002
narrated the incident without even disclosing who is the rider of
the motor bike and in the evidence stating that he is the pillion
rider and Shashidhara was riding the bike, whereas the Police
records states that Shashidhara is the pillion rider and the
claimant is riding the vehicle assumes significance. Admittedly,
the claimant is not having a driving license to drive the vehicle
and the accident had happened at night time. Considering all
these aspects, the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the petition
and this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the order
passed by the Tribunal.
8. Accordingly, the appeal 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
MEG
