Karnataka High Court
Indubai vs Maruti on 7 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15272
MFA No. 100814 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 100815 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100814 OF 2015 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100815 OF 2015 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO. 100814/2015:
BETWEEN:
SHRI SAGAR S/O RAMESH CHOUGULE
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE (NOW NIL),
R/O: TURKEWADI, TQ: CHANDGAD,
DT: KOLHAPUR, STATE MAHARASHTRA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI MARUTI S/O BALACHANDRA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.258, KORAVI GALLI,
JUNE BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI-590005.
(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA-22/ED-4127)
VISHAL
NINGAPPA 2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
PATTIHAL
Digitally signed by VISHAL
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
Location: High Court of
THROUGH ITS SERVICING OFFICE,
2ND FLOOR, SHIKSHAK VISHWAST MANDAL,
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.11.11 15:06:40
+0530
SHIKSHAK BHAVAN, COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI.
(INSURER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA-22/ED-4127
POLICY NO.86624900 VALID
FROM 08/02/2014 TO 07/02/2015)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.12.2014, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.809/2014, ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-I, & ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNALN BELAGAVI, THE PETITION IS HEREBY DISMISSED & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15272
MFA No. 100814 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 100815 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN MFA NO. 100815/2015:
BETWEEN:
SMT. INDUBAI W/O GUNDU HARKARE,
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE (NOW NIL),
R/O: MAJARE KARVE, TQ: CHANDGAD,
DT: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASHTRA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI MARUTI S/O BALACHANDRA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.258, KORAVI GALLI,
JUNE BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI-590005.
(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA-22/ED-4127)
2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS SERVICING OFFICE,
2ND FLOOR, SHIKSHK VAISHWAST MANDAL,
SHIKSHAK BHAVAN, ROAD, BELAGAVI.
(INSURER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA-22/ED-4127
POLICY NO.86624900 VALID FROM
08/02/2014 TO 07/02/2015)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.12.2014,
PASSED IN MVC.NO.810/2014, ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I, & ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, THE PETITION IS
HEREBY DISMISSED & ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15272
MFA No. 100814 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 100815 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the unsuccessful
claimants/injured under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the dismissal of claim
petitions in MVC No.809/2014 & 810/2014 on the file of
learned Presiding Officer, FTC-I and Addl. MACT,
Belagavi1.
2. The parties would be referred to as per their
rankings before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience
and clarity.
3. The case of the claimants in a nutshell before
the Tribunal are that, on 21.03.2014, when both the
claimants were standing by the side of the road in front of
Grampanchayat Majare Karve, suddenly one motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-22/ED-4127 came from
Belagavi side with high speed in a rash and negligent
manner and while taking curve, the rider of the said
motorcycle lost control over the vehicle and dashed to
For short 'Tribunal'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15272
HC-KAR
both petitioners, who were standing by the side of road
and caused accident. Due to the said impact, both the
petitioners have sustained injuries and have taken
treatment in different hospitals. Hence, they prayed for
compensation under different heads.
4. On service of notice, respondent No.2/Insurer
of motorcycle filed its statement of objections, denying the
date, place and time of the accident and also the other
factual aspects. Further, the insurer contended that there
is collusion between the claimant and respondent No.1
with police officials and they got manipulated the
complaint with false version. It was further contended that
there is delay in lodging the complaint and no sufficient
reasons are shown for such delay. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the claim petitions.
5. On behalf of the claimants, both claimants were
examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively and examined one
doctor as PW3, who treated the claimant in MVC
No.810/2014 and got marked Ex.P1 to P61 and closed
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15272
HC-KAR
their side. No evidence was let in on behalf of the
respondents, however, insurance policy was marked as
Ex.R1.
6. After verifying the pleadings of the parties,
recording the evidence of both sides and on verifying the
material on record, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that
the claimants have failed to prove that they have
sustained injuries in the alleged road traffic accident and
thus, dismissed both the claim petitions.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the
claimants are before this Court in the aforesaid appeals.
8. Having heard the learned counsel Sri. B.M. Patil
for the appellant/injured in both the cases and learned
counsel Sri. R.R. Mane for the respondent/insurer, the only
point that would arise for consideration is, whether the
claimants in both the appeals have made out a case that
they have sustained injuries in the road traffic accident in
question?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15272
HC-KAR
9. Answer to the above point would be in the
"negative" for the following reasons:
10. The case of claimants before the Tribunal is that
on 21.03.2014 at 7.15 p.m., they were standing by the
side of the road in front of the office of Gram Panchayat
Majare Karve to go to their house. At that time, one
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/ED-4127 came
from Belagavi side and hit against both the claimants by
losing control over the vehicle. Due to the said accident,
both claimants sustained injuries.
11. To substantiate the above contention, the
claimant in MVC No.810/2014 filed her affidavit and also
she was cross-examined by both the counsel. She has
produced certified copy of FIR and Panchanama marked as
Ex.P1 and P3, which are in Marathi language. The
translated copy of the same are marked as Ex.P2 and P4.
A perusal of Ex.P2 and P4 would reveal that though the
accident occurred on 21.03.2014, the complaint was
lodged only on 2.4.2014, i.e. there is delay about 12 days
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15272
HC-KAR
in lodging the complaint. There is no mention in the
complaint as to why she lodged the complaint belatedly.
There is specific averment in the complaint that both the
claimants were standing by the side of the road and the
vehicle in question came with high speed and in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against them and
caused the accident. She has stated the name of the
claimant in MVC No.809/2014 twice in that complaint. In
this regard, in the cross-examination, the claimant-Indubai
has specifically deposed that she does not know, who is
Sagar Ramesh Chougule. It is to be noticed that without
knowing who is Sagar Ramesh Chougule, how she has
mentioned his name in the complaint is not forthcoming.
The claimant in MVC No.809/2014 was examined by
doctor as per Ex.P45-Medical Certificate issued on
26.3.2014, whereas the alleged accident occurred on
21.03.2014, i.e. there is five days delay in admitting to
the hospital. No explanation is given as to what was the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15272
HC-KAR
treatment taken by the said claimant from 21.3.2014 to
26.3.2014.
12. The police have not produced IMV report along
with charge sheet. However, the claimants have produced
one receipt said to have been issued by India Auto Care
marked at Ex.P8. A perusal of Ex.P8 would disclose that
the vehicle in question was damaged and he has charged
Rs.500 for its repair. The date and time of examination
and repair of the vehicle is not forthcoming in Ex.P8-
receipt. Except mentioning that the vehicle is two wheeler
and its damages, Ex.P8 does not reveal any other fact.
The owner of the vehicle is also not examined to
substantiate these aspects.
13. As per cross-examination of PW1, there were
several other persons at the spot of the accident, however,
none of them were examined to substantiate the
contention of the claimants. Further, in the cross-
examination, PW1 has specifically deposed that she does
not know the vehicle which caused the accident to her.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15272
HC-KAR
Even PW2 has deposed in his cross-examination that he
does not know about Indubai, who is claimant in MVC
No.810/2014. He has deposed that he admitted to Dr.J.H.
Jadhav Hospital after the accident. But he has produced
the medical certificate (Ex.P45) issued by Tukkar Hospital
and not certificate issued by Dr. J.H. Jadhav.
14. Generally, production of FIR, complaint and
charge sheet is sufficient to prove the accident. However,
in some peculiar cases, like this, examination of other
materials is very much necessary, that too when there is
delay of 12 days in lodging the complaint. In this regard,
learned counsel for the appellant/injured placed reliance
on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi
Vs. Badrinarayan & others2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held 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
AIR 2011 SC 1226
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15272
HC-KAR
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 scrutinised more carefully. If the 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."
15. In the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has specifically stated that when there is delay in
lodging the complaint, then the Courts are required to
examine the evidence with a closure scrutiny. On a
closure scrutiny of the evidence of PW1 and 2 and Exs.P1
to 5 and 7, I am of the considered opinion that the
claimants have failed to prove the involvement of the
vehicle in question in the accident.
16. Considering all these aspects in a proper
perspective, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed both the
claim petitions on the ground that the claimants have
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15272
HC-KAR
failed to prove the accident. I find no reason to interfere
with the above said judgment and award of the Tribunal.
Accordingly, I answer the point framed in the "negative"
and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a) The above appeals filed by the claimants
are dismissed as devoid of merits, by
confirming the impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal in MVC
Nos.809/2014 & 810/2014.
b) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
JTR
CT:VP
