Karnataka High Court
Mehboobli Nadaf S/O Peersab Nadaf vs Shamshuddin Kuppelur on 21 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
MFA No. 101786 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101786 OF 2014
(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MEHBOOBLI NADAF S/O. PEERSAB NADAF
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: REGISTERED
MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,
R/O: KUNDUR, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI.
PRESENTLY AT ASAR ONI,
OLD HUBLI, HUBLI-24, DIST: DHARWAD
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. ANITA A. ANVEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI GOURISHANKAR H. MOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHAMSHUDDIN KUPPELUR,
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI
HM AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
R/O: ARVIND NAGAR ROAD,
BENCH
Date:
2025.11.25
GANJIPETH, OLD HUBLI,
10:12:41 +0530
HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAR (KAR).
OWNER OF THE VEHICLE.
2. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SBU-HUBLI OFFICE, SUDEV PLAZA,
3RD FLOOR, DAJIBANPETH,
OPP. LAXMI TEMPEL, HUBLI-580 029,
DIST: DHARWAD (KAR).
3. HAYATKHAN URF SHAKKEL
S/O. ABDUL KASIM KHAN SOOR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
MFA No. 101786 of 2014
HC-KAR
R/AT: H.NO.317, 8TH CROSS,
ARVIND NAGAR, OLD HUBLI,
HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE SERVED TO R1;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE CASE IN MVC NO.781/2010,
ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD,
SITTING AT HUBLI AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.11.2013 PASSED
THEREIN AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS
ARE JUST.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
The unsuccessful claimant is before this Court under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short,
'M.V.Act'), praying for setting aside the judgment of
dismissal passed in MVC No.781/2010 dated 25.11.2013 on
the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge and
Additional MACT, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi (for short,
'the Tribunal').
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as
they were before the Tribunal, for sake of convenience and
clarity.
3. The claimant has filed the claim petition under
Section 166 of M.V.Act, praying for compensation in respect
of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident
that had taken place on 23.06.2010, involving motorcycle
bearing No.KA-25/EE-0740.
4. The case of claimant in nutshell is that, on
23.06.2010 around 16.30 hours, he was walking on the left
side of the road through Indi Pump towards New English
School; respondent No.3 who was the rider of Motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-25/EE-0740, (in short, the
offending vehicle), came in rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the petitioner and thereby caused the
accident. Due to said accident, claimant has sustained
fracture injuries and took treatment at Shreyas Orthopaedic
and Trauma Centre, Hubballi, as inpatient. Hence, he
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
claimed compensation under several heads. On receipt of
notice, respondent No.1 has not appeared and thus, placed
exparte; respondents No. 3 appeared through his counsel,
but not filed his objection statement.
5. It is only respondent No.2-the insurer of the
offending vehicle has filed objection statement, wherein it
denied the entire averments of the claim petition regarding
the date, time and manner of accident and also the injuries
sustained by the claimant and held that a false and
concocted case is lodged against the rider of the motorcycle
by the claimant. It has also taken all the necessary
statutory defences available to the insurer cum owner.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. On behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as
PW.1, apart from examining the doctor as PW.2 and
marking Exhibits P1 to P50 before the Tribunal. On behalf of
respondent No.2, the doctor who has given treatment at the
initial stage to the claimant was examined as RW.1, apart
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
from marking insurance policy as Exhibit R1 and closed its
side before the Tribunal.
7. After recording evidence of both sides and
hearing arguments of both the sides, the Tribunal has
dismissed the petition on the ground that the claimant has
not proved the accident as there is delay in lodging the
complaint and the history given before the initial treated
doctor as self fall from the motorcycle.
8. Aggrieved by the said judgment of dismissal, the
claimant/appellant is before this Court.
9. Heard arguments of learned counsel Smt.Anita A.
Anvekar on behalf of Sri Gourishankar H. Mot, for appellant
and learned counsel Sri S.K.Kayakamath, for respondent
No.2-insurance Company.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the claimant has produced all relevant materials before
the Tribunal i.e., the medical documents, X-rays and other
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
documents and also adduced the evidence of doctor, who
treated the claimant to show that claimant has sustained
injury in a road traffic accident that had taken place on
23.06.2010 involving the offending vehicle. However, only
by relying on the oral evidence of R.W.1, the Tribunal
grossly erred in dismissing the claim petition.
11. Learned counsel for appellant would further
submit that mere delay in lodging the complaint is not a
ground to reject the claim petition. In this regard, learned
counsel for appellant would rely on a judgment of Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Vimal K.S.
vs. The Branch Manager, M/s Bajaj Allianz Beneral
Insurance Co. Ltd., and another, in MFA
No.2610/2012 dated 13.04.2022.
12. Learned counsel for appellant would further
submit that charge sheet is already filed against the driver
of the offending vehicle and thus, rashness and negligence
on the part of the driver of offending vehicle is proved and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
she need not examine independent witnesses to prove it
and at the same time the eyewitness need not file the
complaint and relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb
and Anr., in Civil Appeal No.------ of 2025 (arising out
of SLP (C) No.10351/2019 and the judgment of a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 26.03.2013 in
MFA No.30151/2012. She would further submit that the
insurance company has not challenged the charge-sheet
and hence, it is binding on the respondents. Hence, prayed
for allowing the claim petition and to award compensation
to the claimant under different heads.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
insurance Company would submit that, immediately after
the alleged incident, the claimant was examined by RW.1-
doctor, who has in categorical terms gave evidence that
claimant came to the hospital with the history of self-fall
from the motorcycle and thus, he is not entitled for any
compensation from the respondents, because the claimant
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
failed to prove the involvement of offending vehicle in the
said incident.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance
company would further submit that the complaint is lodged
by son-in-law of the claimant; claimant is an educated
person and no explanation is given for inordinate delay of
12 days in lodging the complaint. PW.2 and RW.1 doctors
are working under the same institution and admittedly
claimant was first examined by RW.1. Considering these
aspects, rightly the Tribunal has dismissed the claim
petition.
15. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
submit that filing of charge sheet itself cannot be a ground
to hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
riding of rider of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal has
to assess the facts independently. In this regard, he relied
upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mathew Alexander vs. Mohammed Shafi and Anr.,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
16. Having heard the arguments of learned counsels
appearing for both the sides and verifying the appeal papers
and also the Tribunal records, the points that would arise
for consideration are:
i) Whether dismissal of claim petition
by the Tribunal by holding that there was no
involvement of offending vehicle in causing the
accident and causing injuries to the claimant is
not proper?
ii) Whether the claimant is entitled for
any compensation?
17. My findings to the above points are in 'negative'
for the following:
REASONS
18. The case of claimant is that on 23.06.2010,
claimant was walking on the left side of the road from Indi
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
Pump towards New English School; respondent No.3 rode
the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the claimant, which caused injuries to the claimant.
To substantiate these facts, claimant has stated the above
facts in his affidavit evidence and also relied upon the
charge sheet and other prosecution papers, which were
marked as Exhibits P.1, P.2 and P.34.
19. On perusal of the complaint at Ex.P.2, it reveals
that it was lodged on 04.07.2010 at 08.30 a.m. before the
jurisdictional police station and then it was registered in
Crime No.147/2010. It is an admitted fact that this
complaint is lodged by the son-in-law of the claimant. It is
stated that the accident has taken place on 23.06.2010, but
there is delay of about 12 days in lodging the complaint.
The only reason assigned for such delay is that the rider of
motorcycle assured that he would bear the medical
expenses.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
20. Exhibit P.3 is the wound certificate issued by the
treated doctor hospital i.e. Shreyas Orthopaedic and
Trauma Centre, Hubballi. It is stated in this wound
certificate that claimant aged about 38 years came to the
hospital on 23.06.2010 with the history of a road traffic
accident on 23.06.2010 and he had sustained a
comminuted fracture of shaft femur and cut lacerated
wound over scalp measuring 3 cm x 1 cm.
21. The other documents are regarding medical bills
and X-rays and other documents to show that the claimant
has taken treatment for this fractured injury.
22. P.W.2 is the doctor, who has operated the
claimant in Shreyas Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre,
Hubballi and stated in his affidavit evidence that he
examined the claimant on 05.07.2011 for assessment of
permanent physical disability and has given the details of
the disability to the claimant. In the cross-examination this
doctor has deposed that on the date of accident itself he
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
has examined the patient and treated him; he volunteered
that Ex.P.3 was issued by Dr.Bellad (RW.1) and proper
person to speak on it. According to PW.2, immediately after
giving treatment to the claimant, they have informed it to
the police.
23. In this regard, the respondent-insurer examined
R.W.1 Dr.Bellad, who has stated in his evidence that he
examined the claimant who admitted to their hospital on
23.06.2010 and found injuries on his body and also found
there was fracture on his left thigh and when he enquired
the claimant, claimant told that while going on the bike, he
fell down and thus, he was injured and thus he has not
given MLC intimation to the police.
24. R.W.1 further deposed that there is mention in
Ex.P.3-wound certificate, "with the history of RTA", but it is
in the printed format. He has deposed that if a person falls
from his own fault from the motorcycle, even then they
would mention it as RTA.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
25. In the cross examination, R.W.1 has categorically
admitted that both P.W.2 and RW.1 together are running
the said Shreyas Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre and P.W.2
has operated claimant and also gave evidence before the
Court. According to him, claimant told that at the time of
admission to the hospital, if claimant had told that he met
with RTA, the doctors would not have given treatment to
him. However, there is no reason for claimant to say so
because it is inevitable and compulsory for each and every
doctor to treat the patient who came to the hospital with
the history of road traffic accident and he cannot deny
giving treatment.
26. PW.1 claimant is not an illiterate person, but he
is well educated; he himself was a practising doctor. Thus,
there was no reason for the claimant to lodge the complaint
belatedly. Even though claimant was taking treatment in
the hospital, if MLC was sent to the police, it is incumbent
upon police officials to come to the hospital and to record
the statement of claimant.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
27. The inpatient record of the claimant produced as
per Ex.P.47 consists of a carbon copy of MLC admission
intimation dated 23.06.2010 to South Traffic Police Station.
On perusal of this document, it is noticed that, even though
this carbon copy is dated 23.06.2010, it was received by
the Station House Officer on 02.07.2010. There is no reason
that why there is such delay of 10 days in sending MLC
intimation to the concerned police station.
28. The say of complainant in the complaint is that
the motorcycle rider followed the claimant and complainant
to the hospital and told that he would pay the medical
expenses and hence, they have not lodged the complaint. If
that being so, then the motorcycle number, name of rider of
the motorcycle, everything would be known to complainant
on 23.06.2010 itself. However name of rider and the
offending vehicle number are not mentioned in MLC register
or in the wound certificate. Only for the first time in the
complaint dated 04.07.2010, the offending vehicle's number
and the name of the rider of said vehicle is mentioned.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
29. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that
mere filing of charge sheet itself is sufficient to prove the
negligent act of the driver of the vehicle and independent
eyewitness need not be examined to prove it. In this regard
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet & Anr.,
stated supra, held at paragraph No.4 as under:
"4. It is settled in law that once a charge
sheet has been filed and the driver has been
held negligent, no further evidence is required to
prove that the bus was being negligently driven
by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are
not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the
death of the deceased due to negligence of the
bus driver."
30. When the name of the driver and registration
number of the offending vehicle is known to everyone, then
the negligence on his part need not be proved and mere
production of charge-sheet is sufficient to prove it. However
in the instant case, the involvement of this offending vehicle
itself is questioned by the insurance Company. Under these
circumstances, the facts and circumstances of present case
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
and aforesaid citation are entirely different and thus, not
applicable to present case.
31. Learned counsel for appellant would further
submit that delay in lodging FIR itself cannot be a ground to
reject the claim petition and in this regard the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in MFA No.2610/2012, states supra,
at paragraph No.7, by relying on the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs.
Badrinarayan and others reported in AIR 2011 SC
1226, held as follows.
"7. The accident had taken place on
29.05.2008 in the evening at about 5.00 pm. No
doubt, it is true that the complaint was lodged on
31.05.2008. Hence, there is a delay of two days in
lodging the complaint. Just because, there is a
delay in lodging the complaint that cannot be
made as a ground to dismiss the claim petition.
There may be various reasons in lodging the
complaint belatedly. The paramount thing is that,
soon after the accident, admitting the injured to
the hospital for his survival is necessary rather
than lodging the complaint before the police. In
the present case, soon after the accident, the
appellant was shifted to Srinivasa Hospital,
Hosakote and then to D.G. Hospital by his friends.
Therefore, just because, the complaint was given
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
on 31.05.2008 by one Nagaraju, even though, he
is not an eye witness that cannot be made as a
ground to reject the claim petition. In this regard,
I place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Vs.
Badrinarayan and Others reported in AIR 2011
SC 1226, wherein at paragraph Nos.20 and 21, it
is observed as under:"
"20. It is well-settled that delay in
lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt
the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian
conditions as they are, we cannot expect
a common man to first rush to the Police
Station immediately after an accident.
Human nature and family responsibilities
occupy the mind of kith and kin to such
an extent that they give more
importance to get the victim treated
rather than to rush to the Police Station.
Under such circumstances, they are not
expected to act mechanically with
promptitude in lodging the FIR with the
Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus,
cannot be the ground to deny justice to
the victim. In cases of delay, the courts
are required to examine the evidence
with a closer scrutiny and in doing so;
the contents of the FIR should also be
scrutinized more carefully. If court finds
that there is no indication of fabrication
or it has not been concocted or
engineered to implicate innocent
persons then, even if there is a delay in
lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot
be dismissed merely on that ground.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
21. The purpose of lodging the
FIR in such type of cases is primarily to
intimate the police to initiate
investigation of criminal offences.
Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum
of accident so that the victim is able to
lodge a case for compensation but delay
in doing so cannot be the main ground
for rejecting the claim petition. In other
words, although lodging of FIR is vital in
deciding motor accident claim cases,
delay in lodging the same should not be
treated as fatal for such proceedings, if
claimant has been able to demonstrate
satisfactory and cogent reasons for it.
There could be variety of reasons in
genuine cases for delayed lodgment of
FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are
able to regain a certain level of
tranquility of mind and are composed to
lodge it, even if, there is delay, the
same deserves to be condoned. In such
circumstances, the authenticity of the
FIR assumes much more significance
than delay in lodging thereof supported
by cogent reasons."
32. Mere delay in filing the FIR itself cannot be a
ground to reject the claim petition. However there shall be
other circumstances to disbelieve the say of claimant, which
are available in the present case.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
33. Learned counsel for respondent insurance
Company would rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Mathew Alexander vs. Mohammed
Shafi stated supra, wherein at paragraph No.8 held as
follows:
"8. We find that the High Court, in the
impugned order in paragraphs 8 to 13 and 18,
has made observations which are in the nature
of findings while considering the correctness or
otherwise of the final report impugned before the
High Court. Further, the observations of the High
Court to the effect that the car driven by the
Appellant's son, Nixon Abey Mathew, was being
driven rashly; that the car had gone astray to
the wrong side; that the possibility that the
driver of the car had driven the car after
consuming alcohol cannot be ruled out; that
rashness and negligence on the part of the driver
of the car is patent and that this is a clear case
in which the principle of res ispa loquitor applies,
are in the nature of findings which were wholly
unnecessary to be made while considering the
correctness or otherwise of the final report
submitted on further investigation of the case.
It is on the basis of the aforesaid
observations which are in the nature of findings
that the High Court has quashed the report
made pursuant to further investigation by
opining, "The incident is attributable to the rash
and negligent driving of the Alto car". The
opinions expressed which are in the nature of
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
findings while considering the correctness or
otherwise of the final report submitted on a
further investigation of the case and thereby
quashing the same is, in our view, not a correct
and proper approach adopted by the High Court.
Hence, the impugned order of the High Court is
liable to be set aside on this short ground alone."
34. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that the Tribunal has to examine the
rashness and negligence and also involvement of the
vehicle in question independently of filing of charge-sheet.
In the instant case, charge-sheet is filed against respondent
No.3 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the
claimant has sustained fractured injury and has taken
treatment on 23.06.2010. However, the only dispute is,
whether the offending vehicle was involved in causing the
accident or whether there was self-fall by the claimant from
motorcycle is to be examined.
35. As discussed above, coupled with delay in
lodging the complaint, there is material evidence of R.W.1
who has issued wound certificate. P.W.2 in his cross-
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
examination has categorically deposed that R.W.1 is the
suitable person to depose about these facts. As per R.W.1,
he has not issued MLC intimation to the police. This is more
probable, because if really on 23.06.2010 itself MLC
intimation was issued, then definitely it would reach the
jurisdictional police station within 24 hours. But it reached
the police station about 10 days after the incident, which is
not at all explained by the claimant.
36. Under these circumstances, dismissal of the
claim petition by the Tribunal by assessing all these matters
is correct. Hence, interference on the aforesaid judgment is
not required. Accordingly, Point No.1 raised for considered,
is answered in negative.
37. Point No.2: This Court already held that the
claimant failed to prove involvement of offending vehicle in
causing the accident. Hence, he is not entitled for
compensation as claimed in the claim petition. Accordingly,
point No.2 does not survive for consideration.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16071
HC-KAR
38. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the M.V.Act,
is dismissed, by confirming the judgment of dismissal and
award passed in MVC 781/2010, dated 25.11.2013, on the
file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT,
Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
MRK
CT-CMU
