Karnataka High Court
Sri L Shivashankar vs Smt Nagarathnamma on 21 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12013
MFA No. 6846 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21STDAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6846 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. L. SHIVASHANKAR,
S/O. LATE LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT P.N.R PALYA,
SIRA GATE, TUMKUR TOWN,
TUMKUR-572 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA,
W/O. B.N. VENKATESHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
DOOR NO.224, 6TH CROSS,
ASHOK NAGARA,
TUMKUR-572 101.
Digitally
signed by 2. THE MANAGER,
SUVARNA T IFFCO-TOKIO,
Location: GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HIGH NO.2262, 7TH B MAIN, 3RD STAGE,
COURT OF NEAR YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
KARNATAKA BUS STAND,
BANGALORE-560 106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2
V/O/D 24.02.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.794/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, MACT, TUMKUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12013
MFA No. 6846 of 2016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed in M.V.C.
No.794/2015 dated 17.08.2016 by the II Addl. District Judge
and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkuru, the
appellant/claimant is before this Court seeking compensation
of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the
claimant in the accident.
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 27.11.2013 at
about 06:30 p.m., while the claimant was proceeding on the
tank bund of Ballapura on Tumkur-Bellavi road in a Honda
Activa in order to attend the marriage of his relative at Chelur
and at that point of time a bus being driven by its driver with
high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from
opposite direction and dashed against him and caused the
accident and he had sustained grievous injuries and
immediately he was shifted to Hemavathi Orthopedic and
Trauma Centre, Tumkur wherein he took treatment as
inpatient for more than one month by incurring Rs.1,00,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC:12013
towards medical and other expenses. The Insurance Company
had taken the objection that the vehicle is not involved in the
accident and the injuries are not sustained by him. It is the
case of the Insurance Company that the accident had taken
place on 27.11.2013, but the complaint was given on
25.12.2013 and after 5 days from the date of accident i.e., on
02.12.2013, the petitioner was admitted in the hospital and
immediately, he was discharged and accordingly, they have
denied the claim of the claimant.
3. The Tribunal by the order impugned had dismissed
the claim petition. While, dismissing the claim petition the
Tribunal had observed that when there is a delay of 29 days in
giving the complaint, FIR is silent as to why the complaint is
given after such a long lapse of time. The Tribunal had also
observed that when the accident has happened on 27.11.2013
and according to the claimant, he is 72 years old and
sustained two fracture injuries, he was admitted in the
hospital after 5 days from the date of accident and
immediately on the next date he was discharged from the
hospital. Even the hospital records also do not disclose the
treatment that was given to the claimant. Considering all
NC: 2025:KHC:12013
these, the Tribunal had held that the claimant has failed to
prove that he had sustained injuries in the road accident as
alleged to have taken place on 27.11.2013 and accordingly
dismissed the claim petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant
submits that the Tribunal without considering both the oral
and documentary evidence had dismissed the application. It is
submitted that the wound certificate clearly shows that he had
sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that makes it clear
that the petitioner had sustained the injuries. He submits that
the Insurance Company had never denied the accident. It is
also submitted that the MLC extract is not placed before the
Tribunal. If an opportunity is given, they will be placing the
same on record and an opportunity may be given to contest
the case and the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal had
considered the documentary as well as the oral evidence and
had rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to
NC: 2025:KHC:12013
interfere with the well considered order passed by the
Tribunal.
6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the material on record. The accident had taken place
on 27.11.2013 and on 25.12.2013 the complaint was given,
no reasons were stated in the FIR as to why the complaint was
given belatedly. It is submitted that in view of the grievous
injuries sustained by him, the complaint could not be given
immediately. If he had sustained grievous injuries in the
accident and he was not in a position to give the complaint, he
should have been admitted in the hospital immediately.
Interestingly in this case though he had sustained grievous
injuries according to him, he was admitted in the hospital 5
days after the accident. The hospital authorities and even the
medical records that are placed do not contain any particulars
about what is the treatment given to the patient. Further in
the pleadings, it is stated that immediately after the accident
he was taken to the hospital and that statement itself is
falsified. By the medical records, it shows that he was
admitted in the hospital 5 days thereafter. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the order of the Tribunal is a well
NC: 2025:KHC:12013
considered one and this Court finds no reasons to interfere
with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, this
Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is
dismissed.
ii. 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.
iii. No costs.
iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
BN
