[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Reliance General Insurance vs Ashok on 11 February, 2026

                                               -1-
                                                        NC: 2026:KHC:8500
                                                     MFA No. 7074 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. 7074 OF 2015 (MV-I)
                 BETWEEN:

                       M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL
                       INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
                       NO.28, 5TH FLOOR,
                       WEST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING,
                       M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                                             ...APPELLANT
                 (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)

                 AND:

                 1.    ASHOK
                       S/O VENKATARAMAPPA,
                       NOW AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
                       R/O AT MUTTON MARKET ROAD,
Digitally signed       BOVI COLONY, MALUR TOWN,
by
PADMASHREE             KOLAR DISTIRCT - 563 101.
SHEKHAR DESAI
Location: High   2.    S. SHIVARAM @ SHIVA
Court of
Karnataka              S/O M. SANJEEVAPPA, MAJOR,
                       R/O NO.83, RANGAPPA STREET,
                       CHIKKAMAVALLI,
                       BANGALORE - 560 004.

                 3.    SRI.VENKATARAMAPPA
                       MAJOR, S/O VENKATAPPA
                       (SINCE DEAD BY LR)
                               -2-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC:8500
                                        MFA No. 7074 of 2015


HC-KAR




    SMT.RAMADEVI,
    MAJOR,
    W/O VENKATARAMAPPA,
    R/O MUTTON MARKET ROAD,
    BOVI COLONY, MALUR TOWN,
    KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI. P.S. KAILASH SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
    VIDE ORDER DATED 24.08.2021, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD
    SUFFICIENT)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5094/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND XXVI ACMM, (SCCH-09) BENGALURU, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.4,55,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT         ON   23.01.2026,      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 insurance company under

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

judgment and award dated 15.07.2015 passed in MVC

NC: 2026:KHC:8500

HC-KAR

No.5094/2013 on the file of the Court of Small Causes and

XXVI ACMM, (SCCH-09), Bengaluru.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the

appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. The ranks

of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of

convenience.

3. The petitioner/injured claimant had filed petition

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

Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an

amount of Rs.4,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,

from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization and

held that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable

to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved by the said order,

the insurance company preferred this appeal.

4. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to properly

appreciate the facts and erred in fixing liability against the

respondents and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

As per the MLC extract and the medical records, it is clear that

the petitioner while going as a pillion rider on a motorcycle was

hit by a lorry. But the Tribunal held that the accident occurred

NC: 2026:KHC:8500

HC-KAR

only due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, which

finding is improper and liable to be set aside.

5. As per the discharge summary marked at Ex.R.1,

the motorcycle was hit by a lorry and there was no negligence

on the part of the rider of the motorcycle on which the injured

was travelling. PW-3, in his cross-examination has clearly

stated that in Ex.P.8 it was initially written as 'hit by lorry,'

which was later erased and written as 'skid and fall'. This

clearly shows that the medical records were tampered and

wrongful. There was delay in lodging the complaint, which also

shows false implication of the motorcycle. Even as on date, the

police have not filed any charge sheet against the rider of the

motorcycle. Hence, it is evident that the rider was not

responsible for causing the accident. Therefore, requested to

set aside the order of the Tribunal.

6. The petitioner-Ashok, aged 21 years, met with an

accident on 01.06.2013. As per his case, he was travelling as a

pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-08-R-

3547 and the rider of the said motorcycle rode it in a rash and

negligent manner, causing the vehicle to skid. As a result, he

NC: 2026:KHC:8500

HC-KAR

fell down from the motorcycle and sustained injuries, for which

he was hospitalized.

7. Notice was issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Respondent No.3 appeared through counsel and filed a written

statement denying the petitioner averments including the

offending motorcycle was insured with it and the insurance

policy was in force as on the date of the accident. It also denied

the manner in which the accident took place and rash and

negligent riding of the offending motorcycle. It was further

contended that the accident did not occurred due to rash and

negligent riding of the motorcycle. Respondent No.3 stated that

the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving licence,

which amounts to violation of the policy conditions and

therefore, it is not liable to indemnify respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending motorcycle, died

during the pendency of the petition and his legal heir was

brought on record as respondent No.2(a). She filed a written

statement and admitted the accident.

8. PW-1 is the injured claimant and PW-2 is the

mother of PW-1. PW-2 stated that one Shiva called her and

NC: 2026:KHC:8500

HC-KAR

informed that he and the petitioner had sustained injuries in

the accident. She further stated that Shiva was riding the

motorcycle at the time of the accident and in order to avoid a

lorry coming from the opposite direction, the motorcycle was

driven towards the ditch, as a result of which both of them fell

down and sustained injuries. But in the medical records it was

wrongly mentioned that a lorry dashed against the motorcycle,

though lorry was not involved in the accident.

9. The petitioner produced Ex.P.1 the complaint;

Ex.P.2 is the intimation given by the police regarding the

accident and Ex.P.3 is the spot mahazar. The IMV report is

marked as Ex.P.5, the discharge summary as Ex.P.6 and the

emergency case record as Ex.P.7. The medical certificate is

marked as Ex.P.8. Ex.P.14 is the driving licence of respondent

No.1, the insurance policy is marked as Ex.P.15, the B-extract

as Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.19 is the driving licence extract.

10. Respondent No.2 examined the Deputy Manager as

RW-1. He stated that as per the hospital records, the petitioner

was hit by a lorry while travelling as a pillion rider. He further

stated that about one day after the accident, a false complaint

NC: 2026:KHC:8500

HC-KAR

was lodged alleging negligence on the part of the rider of the

motorcycle. It was contended that, as per Ex.P.1 and the spot

mahazar, the motorcycle had skidded due to the negligence of

its rider and the pillion rider sustained injuries. As per the MLC

extract and hospital records, the petitioner sustained injuries

while travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle after hit by a

lorry and not due to the negligence of the rider of the

motorcycle. RW-1 further contended that certain alterations

were found in the medical records. In Ex.R.1-discharge

summary, it was recorded as "RTA-hit by lorry while going in a

two-wheeler as a pillion rider". Whereas, in other documents

produced before the Tribunal, it was recorded as "RTA due to

skid and fall from a two-wheeler while going as a pillion rider".

In fact, the petitioner was hit by a lorry, but since the identity

of the lorry was not traced, a false case was filed against the

rider of the motorcycle on the next day after the accident.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that

the rider of the motorcycle did not sustain any injuries and was

not examined before the Court for the reasons best known to

the petitioner. It is further contended that as per Ex.P.7, it is

NC: 2026:KHC:8500

HC-KAR

recorded that the petitioner sustained injuries while going as a

pillion rider, due to skid and fall and there is no entry regarding

'hit by a lorry' in any of the hospital records. It is also

contended that the rider of the motorcycle had no valid driving

licence at the time of the accident. Respondent No.2 was the

owner of the offending vehicle and the father of the petitioner,

died during the pendency of the petition and thereafter his wife

was brought on record as his legal heir. Subsequently,

documents including the insurance policy and driving licence

were produced, contending that the rider of the motorcycle was

holding a valid driving licence.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly relied

upon the medical records in Ex.P.7-emergency case record

dated 02.06.2013, wherein the date of injury is mentioned as

01.06.2013 and it is recorded as "Alleged RTA two-wheeler

pillion rider, skid and fall" and the Pulse Hospital issued a letter

stating that the petitioner was admitted with a history of RTA

due to skid and fall while going in a two-wheeler as a pillion

rider at around 08.30 p.m. on 01.06.2013 near Sarjapur. But

there was whitener at the place of "skid and fall" and the said

NC: 2026:KHC:8500

HC-KAR

document is marked at Ex.P.8. Even in the inpatient records of

Pulse Hospital, it is mentioned that the petitioner sustained

injury to the right thigh due to RTA "skid and fall" and there

was whitener under the skid and fall. RW.1 in his evidence has

clearly stated that no charge sheet has been filed against the

rider of the motorcycle and no notice was issued either to the

owner or to the rider of the alleged offending motorcycle.

13. The petitioner examined PW.3, the Consultant

Orthopedic Surgeon of Pulse Multi Specialty Hospital. In his

cross-examination, PW.3 admitted that as per Ex.R.1, the

petitioner sustained injuries while going as a pillion rider on a

motorcycle which was hit by a lorry. Ex.P.8 was issued by the

duty doctor, wherein initially it was written as "hit by a lorry",

but the same was later erased using whitener and written as

"skid and fall". PW.3 further stated that once a patient is

admitted and discharged, they will only issue one discharge

summary. However, in the present case, two discharge

summaries were issued, marked as Ex.P.6 and Ex.R.1, wherein

the nature of the accident is shown differently. He also deposed

that the history of the accident is entered based on the

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8500

HC-KAR

statement given by the patient or his attendant at the time of

admission in the hospital. In Ex.P.11 initially recorded as "hit by

a lorry," which was subsequently erased and written as "skid

and fall." The evidence of PW.3 clearly shows that the medical

records were tampered.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the

case of Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another1

it was held as follows:

"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 if 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

(2009) 1 KACJ 500

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8500

HC-KAR

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 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

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8500

HC-KAR

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."

15. Though the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial

legislation, it is the duty of the Courts not only to see that

reasonable and just compensation is granted to claimants and

but also there is no abuse of the process of law. In the present

case, the medical records are clearly tampered. As per the

medical records, the petitioner, who was travelling as a pillion

rider on a motorcycle, met with an accident due to hit by a

lorry. As the said lorry was not identified, the history of the

accident was subsequently modified as "skid and fall" in the

medical records and a charge sheet was filed against the rider

of the motorcycle. The owner of the motorcycle was none other