The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12504 MFA No. 3071 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3071 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. KARUNAGARAN @ KARUNAKARAN, S/O SRI. MANICKAM, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HAL INSPECTION DEPT., R/AT NO. 163/4, M.M. ROAD, COXTOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005, AND NO.112, G.T. BLOCK, OORAUM, K.G.F, KOLAR DISTRICT. (BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. SRI. NAMBIRAJ, S/O SRI. KRISHANMURTHY NO.95, 13TH CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BELLARY MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. …APPELLANT Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. THE MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., NO.41, CRYSTAL COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, LAVELLE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. (BY SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.08.2019, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.3481/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12504 MFA No. 3071 of 2015 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant - claimant aggrieved by the dismissal of order passed in M.V.C.No.3481/2011 dated 11.08.2014 by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bangalore, is before this Court. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 16.11.2010 at about 7.10 a.m., he was proceeding on his motorcycle on old Bayappanahalli Road, when he reached near the Railway Gate, Indiranagar Bangalore, at that time, the driver of the TATA Mobile Crane came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. The accident had taken place on 16.11.2010 and the complaint was given on 13.01.2011 with the delay of 58 days. The Insurance Company had denied the accident and it is their case that for the purpose of having compensation, the said vehicle is implicated in the present case. The Tribunal by the order impugned, had dismissed the claim petition observing that though the alleged accident had taken place on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12504 MFA No. 3071 of 2015 16.11.2010 but the claimant has filed the complaint on 13.01.2011 after lapse of 58 days. Though the claimant had received an amount of Rs.5,000/- and odd as self damages from the insurer of the motorcycle. For the reasons best known to him, he has not produced the application filed by him before the insurer of the motor cycle for seeking damages and report prepared by the surveyor to grant damages to the petitioner and the Investigating Officer has not seized the vehicle involved in the accident. The claimant in his evidence has stated that, at the time of inspection of the vehicle, it is already got repaired. That is the reason why IMV inspector has not found any damages. Even if it is considered that the vehicle was damaged in the accident and he has got repaired from the garage, what prevented him to establish the said facts by examining the person who repaired the motorcycle. That itself is clear that the claimant has filed false claim and accordingly the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the claimant has failed to prove his case through oral and documentary evidence that the accident in question had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12504 MFA No. 3071 of 2015 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- claimant submits that the Tribunal had failed to consider the fact that as per Ex.P7-wound certificate, he was hospitalised on 16.11.2010 and he had sustained fracture injures and Ex.P10 is certified copy of the order sheet in C.C.No.119/2011 and also Ex.P11 is the plea of the driver that he is guilty in C. C. No.119/2011, all these things clearly prove that the accident had taken place. He submits that even delay in filing the complaint cannot be the reason for dismissing the claim petition and the Tribunal had failed to consider all these aspects. 4. Leaned counsel appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered all the aspects. It is submitted that when the accident had taken place on 16.11.2010, the reasons explained by them for delay of 58 days is not proper and the Tribunal had taken note of this. He further submits that as per the complaint, the vehicle involved is a car and insured vehicle is a TATA Mobile Crane. It is submitted that these things clearly prove that the vehicle is falsely implicated in the case. He submits that if it is a road traffic accident, whether it is a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12504 MFA No. 3071 of 2015 Government Hospital or a Private Hospital, they would have informed the same to the police. He should have filed MLC register. If not the MLC register, he should have examined the doctors who have treated them at that particular point of time or the hospital authorities when he was admitted in the hospital. All these documents were not filed and he has failed to discharge the burden cast upon him to show that the accident had happened. He submitted that in view of the same, the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. When an application is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the burden lies on the claimant to prove that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the opposite vehicle. In this case, there is a delay of 58 days in filing a complaint. In those circumstances, the burden lies more on the claimant. When it is the case that an accident had occurred, either he should place before the Court the MLC register or at least he should have examined the doctors to show that he was admitted on that day, but, no such documents are filed. It is stated that in the criminal case, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12504 MFA No. 3071 of 2015 driver was convicted as he pleaded guilty. Nearly basing on that, this Court cannot considered that the accident had taken place. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reasons interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:
Decision
ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. KA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE