[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Shanthamma V vs The Manager on 11 February, 2026

                                                 -1-
                                                            NC: 2026:KHC:8483
                                                         MFA No. 1429 of 2015


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                                BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1429 OF 2015 (MV-I)
                   BETWEEN:

                         SMT. SHANTHAMMA V
                         W/O MALLA REDDY,
                         AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
                         R/O SAI NAGAR,
                         NERALURU VILLAGE,
                         ATTIBELE HOBLI,
                         ANEKAL TALUK - 560 105.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    THE MANAGER
                         IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
Digitally signed
by                       REGD OFFICE IFFCO SADAN,
PADMASHREE               C1. DISTT. CENTER SAKET,
SHEKHAR DESAI
                         NEW DELHI - 110 017.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka                BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.41,
                         2ND FLOOR, NEXT TO MONDOVI MOTORS
                         CRISTO COMPLEX,
                         BANGALORE - 01.

                   2.    S. SURESH
                         R/O NO.34, 8TH MAIN,
                         VIRATANAGAR,
                                 -2-
                                                  NC: 2026:KHC:8483
                                            MFA No. 1429 of 2015


HC-KAR




      BOMMANAHALLI,
      BANGALORE - 560 068.
                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 14.02.2020, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2
IS DISPENSED WITH)

       THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 1.7.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4487/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 16TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

       THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT       ON         30.01.2026,      COMING       ON     FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA


                          CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under

Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the

judgment and award dated 01.07.2014 passed in MVC

No.4487/2011 on the file of the XVI Additional Judge,

Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bangalore.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the appellant and learned counsel for respondent

NC: 2026:KHC:8483

HC-KAR

No.1/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are

retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The petitioner/injured claimant met with an

accident on 26.04.2011 and had filed petition before the

Tribunal for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Trial

Court considering the entire evidence on record dismissed

the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal

is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended

that the Tribunal failed to consider Exs.P.1 to P.5

documents filed by the appellant and also Exs.P.6 to P.14

regarding injuries sustained by her and dismissed the

claim petition mainly on the ground that there is a delay of

82 days in lodging the complaint. It is further contended

that the driver of the vehicle pleaded guilty for the

offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of

the IPC. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the

Tribunal.

NC: 2026:KHC:8483

HC-KAR

5. The manner of the accident, as per the petition

is that on 26.04.2011, the petitioner was going to her

home and when she came near Neraluru gate, on NH-7

service road, the bike bearing No.KA-51-Y-8478 came in a

rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed

the petitioner/injured claimant. As a result, she sustained

grievous injuries and was taken to Sparsh Hospital,

Bangalore, where she underwent surgery and was

discharged on 09.05.2011. The petitioner/injured once

again admitted in the same hospital on 10.05.2011 and

took treatment for 48 days and discharged. She has spent

Rs.1,60,000/- for medical expenses. She was running

provisions store and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due

to the injuries sustained in the accident, she became

handicapped and could not perform her duties. Crime

No.184/2011 was registered against the rider of the bike

for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of IPC

r/w Section 187 of MV Act.

NC: 2026:KHC:8483

HC-KAR

6. Respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent

No.2 is the owner of the motorcycle. As such, they are

jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

However, respondent No.1 contended that no insurance

policy was issued in respect of the said motorcycle for the

period from 11.04.2011 to 10.04.2012 and the said

motorcycle was not involved in the accident. Respondent

No.2 did not inform the insurer regarding the involvement

of the vehicle and there was no negligence on the part of

the rider. It is further contended that the petitioner was hit

by an unknown vehicle and the compensation claim made

is excessive and the accident occurred due to the

negligence of the petitioner only.

7. PW.1-the petitioner stated in her cross-

examination that she did not know the particulars of the

vehicle which caused the accident. She further stated that

one Kishor shifted her to the hospital and she lodged the

FIR after a delay of 82 days from the date of the accident.

She stated that the wife and mother of the said Kishor

NC: 2026:KHC:8483

HC-KAR

have given her the details of the accident and she was

searching for the vehicle, which resulted in the delay in

lodging the FIR. It is also stated that Kishor was

acquainted with the owner of the vehicle which caused the

accident. The police registered a case in Crime

No.184/2011 against the rider of the Suzuki motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-51-Y-8478. The police drawn

panchanama on 19.07.2011 at the place of the offence

and issued a requisition to the RTO on 23.07.2011 for

inspection of the said vehicle. The IMV Inspector inspected

the vehicle on the same day at 2.50 p.m. and noticed the

following damages to the vehicle:

1. Head light doom scratches,

2. LH side clutch lever scratches

3. LH side crash guard scratches

The brake system of the vehicle was in order and the

damages were fresh. The accident was not due to any

mechanical defect in the vehicle. The petitioner stated that

she sustained fracture of the second cervical spine and

NC: 2026:KHC:8483

HC-KAR

undisplaced fracture of the right acetabulum and the said

injuries are grievous in nature. She was brought to the

hospital by her daughter with a history of road traffic

accident (RTA).

8. RW.1, who is the Assistant Manager of

respondent No.1-Insurance Company, deposed that the

insurance policy was issued in favour of respondent No.2

and was in force for the period from 11.04.2011 to

10.11.2012. Respondent No.2 did not intimate the insurer

regarding the involvement of the insured vehicle in the

alleged accident, which is mandatory under Section 134(c)

of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further contended that the

police also failed to comply with the provisions of Section

158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such, the said

motorcycle was not involved in the accident and there is a

delay of 82 days in lodging the complaint. PW.1 herself

admitted that she could not identify either the vehicle or

its registration number. According to RW.1, the accident is

a hit-and-run case and the motorcycle has been falsely

NC: 2026:KHC:8483

HC-KAR

implicated. It is further contended that the charge-sheeted

rider and the insured are relatives of the petitioner.

Though the petitioner's daughter stated that the petitioner

sustained injuries in a road traffic accident, but that does

not mean that she was dashed by the Suzuki bike bearing

registration No.KA-51-Y-8478. RW.1 further contended

that the petitioner and her daughter had ample

opportunity to lodge a complaint or FIR at the earliest

point of time. But they kept quiet till 18.07.2011, for a

period of 82 days. PW.1 admitted that she was discharged

from the hospital on 09.05.2011, even afterwards she has

not filed complaint.

9. PW.1 further stated that one Kishor, his wife,

and his mother were aware of the accident. However,

none of them informed the police about the accident, nor

they examined before the Tribunal to substantiate the

petitioner's version. No independent eyewitness to the

accident was examined. As per the IMV report dated

23.07.2011, the damages to the motorcycle were fresh.

NC: 2026:KHC:8483

HC-KAR

However, the accident is alleged to have occurred on

26.04.2011. The inspection of the vehicle was conducted

only after lodging of the complaint, which was delayed by

87 days. According to RW.1, the finding of fresh damages

in the IMV report goes against the case of the petitioner.

10. It is contended that there are material

inconsistencies and defects in the evidence of PW.1 and

the case is hit and run, wherein the Suzuki motorcycle has

been falsely implicated only to claim compensation. On

these grounds, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred

the present appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in

appreciating the evidence on record. Admittedly, it is for

the petitioner to prove the accident. Though the accident

is occurred on 26.04.2011, the complaint was given after

87 days. Even petitioner herself stated that she was

discharged from the hospital on 09.05.2011 and she has

not given any reason for not lodging the complaint at least

after 09.05.2011.

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8483

HC-KAR

11. It is further contended that neither the

petitioner nor her daughter lodged any complaint with the

police, nor did the hospital authorities intimate the police.

Though PW.1 claimed that she came to know the details of

the vehicle through Kishor and his wife and mother, none

of them were examined before the Court. Hence, the

Insurance Company contended that the petitioner met

with an accident involving an unidentified vehicle and

falsely implicated the insured motorcycle in order to

wrongfully claim compensation.

12. The Insurance Company relied upon the

decision of (2009) 1 KACJ 500 between Veerappa and

Another Vs. Siddappa and Another, wherein it was

held as follows:

"16. 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 trend of unholy alliance among the police, the doctors, the lawyers and some times even the

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8483

HC-KAR

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).

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8483

HC-KAR

19. It is once again made clear that notwithstanding the vehicle of the 1st 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."

13. No doubt it is a beneficial legislation and it is for

the Court to take lenient view while granting compensation

to the victims. At the same time, it is for the Courts to see

that there is no abuse of process of law and Courts are

expected to safeguard the public money of the insurance

company. The petitioner has not examined any eyewitness

and no damage caused to the vehicle. Therefore, the

Tribunal rightly considered all the aspects and dismissed

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8483

HC-KAR

the application. This Court finds no reason to interfere with