The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12013 MFA No. 6846 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21STDAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6846 OF 2016(MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. L. SHIVASHANKAR, S/O. LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT P.N.R PALYA, SIRA GATE, TUMKUR TOWN, TUMKUR-572 102. (BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O. B.N. VENKATESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, DOOR NO.224, 6TH CROSS, ASHOK NAGARA, TUMKUR-572 101. 2. THE MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO, GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.2262, 7TH B MAIN, 3RD STAGE, NEAR YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BUS STAND, BANGALORE-560 106. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O/D 24.02.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.794/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, TUMKUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12013 MFA No. 6846 of 2016 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed in M.V.C. No.794/2015 dated 17.08.2016 by the II Addl. District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkuru, the appellant/claimant is before this Court seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 27.11.2013 at about 06:30 p.m., while the claimant was proceeding on the tank bund of Ballapura on Tumkur-Bellavi road in a Honda Activa in order to attend the marriage of his relative at Chelur and at that point of time a bus being driven by its driver with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed against him and caused the accident and he had sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to Hemavathi Orthopedic and Trauma Centre, Tumkur wherein he took treatment as inpatient for more than one month by incurring Rs.1,00,000/- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12013 MFA No. 6846 of 2016 towards medical and other expenses. The Insurance Company had taken the objection that the vehicle is not involved in the accident and the injuries are not sustained by him. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the accident had taken place on 27.11.2013, but the complaint was given on 25.12.2013 and after 5 days from the date of accident i.e., on 02.12.2013, the petitioner was admitted in the hospital and immediately, he was discharged and accordingly, they have denied the claim of the claimant. 3. The Tribunal by the order impugned had dismissed the claim petition. While, dismissing the claim petition the Tribunal had observed that when there is a delay of 29 days in giving the complaint, FIR is silent as to why the complaint is given after such a long lapse of time. The Tribunal had also observed that when the accident has happened on 27.11.2013 and according to the claimant, he is 72 years old and sustained two fracture injuries, he was admitted in the hospital after 5 days from the date of accident and immediately on the next date he was discharged from the hospital. Even the hospital records also do not disclose the treatment that was given to the claimant. Considering all - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12013 MFA No. 6846 of 2016 these, the Tribunal had held that the claimant has failed to prove that he had sustained injuries in the road accident as alleged to have taken place on 27.11.2013 and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal without considering both the oral and documentary evidence had dismissed the application. It is submitted that the wound certificate clearly shows that he had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that makes it clear that the petitioner had sustained the injuries. He submits that the Insurance Company had never denied the accident. It is also submitted that the MLC extract is not placed before the Tribunal. If an opportunity is given, they will be placing the same on record and an opportunity may be given to contest the case and the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal had considered the documentary as well as the oral evidence and had rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12013 MFA No. 6846 of 2016 interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The accident had taken place on 27.11.2013 and on 25.12.2013 the complaint was given, no reasons were stated in the FIR as to why the complaint was given belatedly. It is submitted that in view of the grievous injuries sustained by him, the complaint could not be given immediately. If he had sustained grievous injuries in the accident and he was not in a position to give the complaint, he should have been admitted in the hospital immediately. Interestingly in this case though he had sustained grievous injuries according to him, he was admitted in the hospital 5 days after the accident. The hospital authorities and even the medical records that are placed do not contain any particulars about what is the treatment given to the patient. Further in the pleadings, it is stated that immediately after the accident he was taken to the hospital and that statement itself is falsified. By the medical records, it shows that he was admitted in the hospital 5 days thereafter. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order of the Tribunal is a well - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12013 MFA No. 6846 of 2016 considered one and this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, this Court is passing the following:
Decision
ORDER i. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant 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. iii. No costs. iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 11