Karnataka High Court
Shivaji Namadev Aladar vs Hitesh on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
MFA No. 202592 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 202708 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202592 OF 2023 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202708 OF 2025(MV-D)
IN MFA NO.202592/2023:
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Digitally ...APPELLANT
signed by
SUMITRA (BY SRI. S S ASPALLI, ADVOCATE)
SHERIGAR
Location: AND:
HIGH COURT
OF 1. SHIVAJI NAMADEV ALADAR
KARNATAKA AGE 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
2. MARUTI SHIVAJI ALADAR
AGE 29 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
3. BALU SHIVAJI ALADAR
AGE 27 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
ALL ARE R/O KOLA (KARADWADI)
SANGOLA TALUK
SOLAPUR DISTRICT - 413 007.
4. HITESH NAMDEO ALADAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
MFA No. 202592 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 202708 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGE MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE & OWNER OF MOTOR
CYCLE NO. MH-45/U-8575
R/O SHIVCHAYA HOUSING SOCIETY
MIRAJ ROAD, SANGOLA
SOLAPUR DISTRICT - 413 007.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANTH LAXMAN, ADV. FOR R1 TO
R3; R4 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO A)
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO. 140/2015 DATED 02-08-
2021 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
NO.XV. B) SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02-08-
2021 IN MVC NO.140/2015 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XV BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL.
IN MFA NO.202708/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAJI NAMADEV ALADAR
AGE 54 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE
2. MARUTI SHIVAJI ALADAR
AGE 31 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
3. BALU SHIVAJI ALADAR
AGE 29 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
ALL ARE R/O KOLA (KARADWADI)
TQ. SANGOLA, DIST. SOLAPUR-413 314.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANTH LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
MFA No. 202592 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 202708 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. HITESH
S/O. NAMDEO ALADAR,
AGE MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE
OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.MH-45/U-8575,
R/O SHIVCHAYA HOUSING SOCIEYT MIRAJ ROAD
SANGOLA, TQ. SANGOLA,
DIST. SOLAPUR-413 007.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
S.S FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S S ASPALLI, FOR R2; R1 IS DEEMED TO BE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
02.08.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 140/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XV,
VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY Rs.14,91,800/-
ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 18.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The tribunal passed an award dated 02.08.2021
in MVC No.140/2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
No.XV, Vijayapura (for short 'the tribunal').
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
HC-KAR
2. One Smt. Jamunabai met with accident on
17.12.2014 and succumbed to the injuries. Her husband and
sons i.e. claimant Nos.1 to 3 filed claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.22,50,000/- before the tribunal. The
tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record,
awarded a sum of Rs.7,58,200/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of realization. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and award,
the Insurance company filed MFA No.202592/2023 and
submitted that, on 17.12.2014 Jamunabai was proceeding on
motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-45/U-8575 as pillion
rider. The rider of the motorcycle driven the said motorcycle
in a rash and negligent manner, as a result the pillion rider
fell down and sustained grievous injuries and subsequently
died on 20.12.2014 while undergoing treatment. It is
contended that, the complaint is given with a delay of 23
days and the reasons for delay is not explained. The
complaint was filed as an afterthought and with malafide
intention to claim the compensation. The claimants examined
P.W.2 as an eyewitness, but he was not shown as eyewitness
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
HC-KAR
in the charge-sheet. The police have not recorded the
statement of P.W.2 and he was never shown the spot of the
accident to the police. The complaint is filed on 09.01.2015
at 16.35 hours and the spot of the accident is 35 kilometers
away from the police station, but the spot mahazar was done
on the same day between 16.52 to 17.20 hours, which is not
possible considering the distance from the police station to
the spot of the accident. The owner of the motorcycle is none
other than brother of the claimant No.1 and the deceased is
the wife of the claimant No.1. The complainant is the son of
the deceased. Rider of the motorcycle is the brother-in-law
of the claimant Nos.2 and 3 and they have falsely implicated
the motorcycle. Therefore, the award passed by the MACT is
liable to be set aside.
3. Another appeal in MFA No.202708/2025 is filed
by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation.
They contended that, deceased Jamunabai was earning a
sum of Rs.8,000/- per month by doing coolie work, but the
tribunal has taken the income of the deceased Jamunabai as
7,500/- and the amounts granted under the other heads are
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
HC-KAR
also meager. Further it is submitted that, 1/3rd is to be
deducted towards personal expenses and 40% is to be added
towards future prospects and 9% interest on the
compensation amount is to be awarded and thus, requested
for enhancement of the compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance company
contended that, the accident has occurred on 17.12.2014.
She took treatment from 17.12.2014 to 20.12.2024 and
succumbed to the injures on 20.12.2014. Respondent No.1
remained ex-parte. The policy was in existence as on the
date of the accident. The complaint was given on 09.01.2015
i.e. after 23 days. P.W.1 is not the eyewitness to the
occurrence of the accident. They have not produced medical
records from the Primary Health Center. The police have not
recorded statements of the witnesses on the date of the
accident. P.W.2 who is an eyewitness to the incident has
admitted that, he visited the spot after five days of the
accident and there was no vehicle on the spot. As per Ex.P.4
- IMV report, the accident was not occurred due to any
mechanical defects. Ex.P.5 is the cause of death certificate,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
HC-KAR
in which it is mentioned that, the death is due to head injury.
Even in Ex.P.8-P.M.Report it is stated that, the deceased
died due to head injury. The tribunal relied upon a citation
reported in 2011 (4) SCC 693 between Ravi Vs.
Badrinarayan and others, wherein, it is held that, the
delay in filing the FIR is not sufficient ground for dismissal of
the case of the claimants. But the Insurance company has
contended that, the rider of the motorcycle is the brother-in-
law of the claimant Nos.2 and 3 and owner of the motorcycle
is the brother of the claimant No.1 and Jamunabai is the wife
of the claimant No.1. The complaint was given after 23 days
by impleading the vehicle bearing registration No.MH-45/U-
8575. It was further argued that, the complaint is given on
09.01.2015 at about 16.35 hours. The spot mahazar was
done on the same day between 16.50 hours to 17.20 hours,
though the place of accident is at a distance of 35 kilometers
from the police station.
5. In a citation reported in (2009) 1 KACJ 500
between Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and
Another it was held as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
HC-KAR
"The experience has shown that
this branch of law is slowly getting into
the hands of unscrupulous people who
are making a mockery of judicial process.
A disturbing tread of unholy alliance
among the police, the doctors, the
lawyers and some times even the
Insurance Company, to siphorn out the
public money, and make an unlawful gain
is fast emerging. It is also gaining
respectability and persons who indulge in
such practices are acclaimed as most
successful in their respective profession.
This is a dangerous trend, if unchecked
would undermine the judicial process. As
the existing law is inadequate to check
this malady, the Courts not only have to
be careful in adjudicating such claims but
also find ways to prevent such abuse
They have to balance the interest of
these accident victims and their legal
heirs on one side, by giving them just
compensation at the earliest, thus giving
effect to the mandate of the parliament,
and on the other hand, to see that the
very process is not abused and exploited
by a handful of persons, who have
attained specialization in this field, to
make personal gains at the cost of the
exchequer. An onerous responsibility lies
on the Courts. Therefore, it is imperative
that a strong message is to be sent to
the abusers of the judicial process to
discourage them from indulging in such
practices as well as the consequences of
such abuse may result in foisting the
liability exclusively on the insured-owner
of the vehicle. (Para 16).
19. It is once again made clear that
notwithstanding the vehicle of the 1st
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
HC-KAR
respondent was insured with the 2nd
respondent, the insurance company is
not liable to indemnify the insured as we
have recorded a finding that it was not
involved in the accident. Therefore, there
is no third party liability on the part of
the insurance company to pay
compensation to the claimants. This
amount is awarded in order to see that in
future such false defences are not filed
before Court, judicial process is not
abused. Therefore, it is only the 1st
respondent/owner who is liable to pay
the aforesaid amount. Ordered
accordingly.
6. He relied upon a citation reported in MFA
No.200941/2019 [Suresh S/o. Mahadev Vathar Vs.
Siddarama and others] and argued that, the deceased
Jamunabai sustained head injuries, but she did not met with
accident on 17.12.2014 and she was not traveling as a pillion
rider on the said motorcycle. They impleaded the vehicle
after 23 days only to gain wrongfully. She was admitted in
the hospital till 20.12.2024 and succumbed to the injuries.
Even afterwards no complaint was given by the claimants.
The delay in filing the complaint is not explained anywhere,
therefore, this Court finds that it is clear case of implication
of the vehicle after 23 days of the filing of the false
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
HC-KAR
complaint by the son of the deceased by duly implicating the
vehicle of the relative which is insured with the Insurance
company. The rider of the motorcycle is also a close
relative/brother-in-law. No doubt, it is a beneficial
legislation, but this Court should be cautious regarding
involvement of the vehicles and fake claims. In view of the
above discussion, this Court finds that it is clear case of
implication of the vehicle, as such, the claimants are not
entitle for any compensation and the Insurance company is
not liable to pay the compensation.
7. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the Insurance
company i.e. MFA No.202592/2023 is allowed;
(ii) The appeal filed by the claimants in
MFA No.202708/2025 is dismissed;
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6934
HC-KAR
(iii) The amount deposited by the
Insurance company shall be refunded to the
Insurance company;
sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
SVH
CT:RJ
