[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Ali Sab Mohammad Sab on 9 April, 2026
-1-
MFA No. 100445 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100445 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DO X HERO MOTORCORP VERTICAL-101-106,
DMC HOUSE CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110001,
NOW R/BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,
S.K. HOSMANI
REGIONAL OFFICE, ARIHANT ARCADE,
KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. ALI SAB MOHAMMAD SAB
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.04.10
R/O: SALMATH GALLI, NEAR PATEL SAW MILL,
10:19:48 +0530
SIRSI, DIST: U.K. DISTRICT.
2. YESHEERBANU MOHIDDIN SHAIKH
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF BIKE,
R/O: NEAR PATEL SAW MILL, GUDDADMANE,
SIRSI, DIST: U.K. DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE SERVED TO R1 AND R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & AWARD
DATED:16.09.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.84/2012, ON THE FILE OF
THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL SRISI, WITH
COSTS AND INTEREST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE
SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
16.03.2026, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
MFA No. 100445 OF 2015
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
The insurer of motorcycle bearing No.KA-31-Q-6165 in
MVC No.84/2012 on the file of learned Additional MACT, Sirsi
(in short 'the Tribunal') has preferred this appeal praying to set
aside the judgment and award dated 16.09.2014 passed
therein.
2. The claimant namely Ali Sab Mohammad Sab
maintained the petition in MVC No.84/2012 under Section 166
of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
from owner and insurer of motorcycle bearing No.KA-31-Q-
6165 on the ground that on 03.03.2012 he met with a road
accident due to actionable negligence on the part of the rider of
the said motorcycle and as a result of which he sustained
grievous injuries.
3. On service of notice, insurer appeared before the
Tribunal, filed their objection and contested the petition.
Thereafter, the Tribunal framed issues, held enquiry and then
disposed of the claim petition on merits of the case. The
Tribunal held that the claimant has proved having met with a
road accident due to negligence attributable to the rider of
motorcycle bearing No.KA-31-Q-6165 and on considering other
MFA No. 100445 OF 2015
materials available on record, awarded a total compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant together with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment
and award, the insurer has come up with this appeal.
4. Sri G. N. Raichur, learned Counsel for the Insurer,
vehemently submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave and
manifest error in resolving Issue No. 1 in favor of the claimant,
patently disregarding the unassailable testimony of RW-1 and
RW-2. He forcefully contended that the claimant had sustained
injuries solely due to a fall from the lorry, and had not
encountered any accident as falsely averred in the claim
petition. He alleged that the claimant had maliciously
implicated the motorcycle merely to unlawfully enrich himself
by colluding with the owner of the offending vehicle. He further
submitted that the rider of the motorcycle had failed to renew
the driving license as on the date of the alleged incident,
thereby occasioning a clear breach of the policy's terms and
conditions by the insured.
5. The notice of this appeal has been served on the
claimant as well as the insured. In spite of the same, both of
them have remained absent before this Court.
6. In light of the arguments canvassed on behalf of
the Insurer, the point that arises for consideration before this
MFA No. 100445 OF 2015
Court is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the
claimant has proved the accident as pleaded in the petition?
7. As pointed out hereinabove, the claimant
maintained the petition in MVC No.84/2012 seeking
compensation for the injuries sustained in a road accident
occurred on 03.03.2012. It is the case of the claimant that on
03.03.2012 at about 12.00 noon when he reached near Nehru
Nagar Cross, one motorcycle bearing No.KA-31-Q-6165 came
from Nehru Nagar side in a great speed and in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against him from his back side.
Due to the said impact, the claimant suffered injuries on his
right hand and other parts of the body.
8. During the trial of the case, the claimant stepped
into witness box and deposed before the Tribunal reiterating
the averments of the claim petition and produced relevant
police papers such as the complaint, FIR, the charge sheet and
the wound certificate at Exs.P1 to P4, in support of his
contention. Further, the claimant examined one more witness
i.e., the police officer, who laid the charge sheet against the
rider of motorcycle bearing No. KA-31-Q-6165 in connection
with the accident in question.
9. The materials on record make it clear that though
the accident said to have occurred on 03.03.2012 at 12.00
MFA No. 100445 OF 2015
noon, a formal complaint came to be lodged only on
08.03.2012 at 12.30 p.m. The complaint was lodged by the
brother-in-law of the claimant. In the complaint, it is
categorically stated that on 3.3.2012 at about 12.00 noon the
de-facto complainant came to know about the claimant having
met with an accident involving a motorcycle, and as such, he
immediately went to TSS Hospital in Sirsi and inquired the
claimant about the incident. It is stated during such
conversation, the claimant not only revealed having identified
the rider of concerned motorcycle but also stated the name of
the said person as Mohiddin Sab, son of Imam Sab Sheikh,
resident of Salamat Galli, Near Patel Saw Mill, Sirsi and the
registration number of the offending vehicle as motorcycle
bearing No.KA-31-Q-6165. However, the complaint is silent
about whether the de-facto complainant had inquired with the
claimant about lodging of any complaint or the reason for which
he did not inquire in the matter after gathering all other details
from the claimant. On the other hand, it was vaguely stated
that under the impression of having lodged the complaint, the
de-facto complainant got engaged in taking care of the
claimant. It is also relevant to note that the claimant did not
choose to examine the de-facto complainant to satisfactorily
MFA No. 100445 OF 2015
prove the circumstances which led to delay in filing the
complaint.
10. The other materials available on record also do not
inspire confidence to accept the version of the claimant. The
claimant has produced a medico legal certificate at Ex.P4 and a
cash/credit bill at Ex.P5, which pertain to his treatment at TSS
Hospital, Sirsi. In Ex.P4 history of injuries is mentioned as
"RTA at about 12.30 p.m. on 03.03.12" and details of injuries
as "injury to right wrist with bleeding wound with exposed
bone". In this document it is specifically mentioned that radius
and ulna distal 1-1½" exposed and it was Grade III compound
perilunate fracture dislocation of right wrist. At the same time,
as per Ex.P5, the claimant was admitted to TSS Hospital on
03.03.2012 at 06.40 p.m. Further, as per Ex.P4, he was
examined at the said hospital for the first time on 03.03.2012
at 07.00 p.m. It is not the case of the claimant that
immediately after the accident he had been taken to any other
hospital for treatment. As such, if at all the claimant had met
with an accident on 03.03.2012 at about 12.00 noon or 12.30
p.m. and sustained injuries as mentioned in Ex.P4, he or any
other person attending him would not have delayed in going to
the hospital till 6.40 p.m.
MFA No. 100445 OF 2015
11. On the other hand, the insurer has examined a
doctor of concerned hospital, to probabilise their contention
that the claimant had not met with an accident, as averred in
the petition. RW-1 - Dr. Madhukeshwar G.V. in his examination
in chief has stated that on 03.03.2012 at 07.00 p.m., when he
was on duty in TSS Hospital, Sirsi, the claimant had come to
the said hospital for treatment for injuries on his right hand
with history of fall from lorry and on finding that the claimant
had suffered grievous injuries, he admitted him to the hospital
and treated as an inpatient from 05.03.2012 to 09.03.2012.
Further, he has produced a true copy of Medico Legal Register
maintained at their hospital, which is marked as Ex.R1.
12. Ex.R1 contains a mention about the claimant having
been taken to TSS Hospital, Sirsi on 03.03.2005 at 7.00 p.m.,
for treatment by one Sri Mohammad Sab Peersab Sheikh with
alleged history of RTA at about 12.30 p.m. near Nehru Nagar,
hit by a motorbike. However, the endorsement found at top of
the said page reads as follows: "Patient's relatives have filed
complaint at a later date by themselves on 08.03.2012, so
entered in register at a later date". Thereby it becomes clear
that whatever entry made in Medico Legal Register as found in
Ex.R-1 was an entry made pursuant to lodging of the complaint
on 08.03.2012 and not in due course of business. Further, the
MFA No. 100445 OF 2015
description of the person mentioned in Ex.R1, who said to be
accompanied the injured to the hospital, gives an impression
that he was the same person i.e., Mr. Mohammad Sab Peersab
Sheikh, who lodged the complaint in connection with the
alleged accident.
13. In the present case, there was delay of 5 days in
lodging the complaint. The claimant has not offered a
reasonable and satisfactory explanation for such delay in
lodging the complaint. Normally, the hospital authorities
inquire with the injured or his attendant about history of the
injury and based on the information received, they take further
action of informing the jurisdictional police if it was a medico
legal case. In this case, the statement made by RW-1 provides
a reasonable explanation for which the hospital authorities had
not given intimation to the police. Thus, upon re-appreciating
the record, it is evident that the Tribunal erred manifestly in
resolving Issue No. 1 in the claimant's favour, disregarding the
abundant evidence that bolsters the insurer's contention. In
view of the same, point for consideration is answered in the
negative.
14. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
MFA No. 100445 OF 2015
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) Consequently, the judgment and award dated
16.09.2014 passed in MVC No.84/2012 by
learned Additional MACT, Sirsi is set aside.
iii) The Insurer is permitted to withdraw the
amount deposited in the case, if any.
iv) The registry is directed to send back the trial
court record to concerned tribunal, at the
earliest.
v) Draw an award accordingly.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
RKM,YAN
CT: CMU
