M/S Icici Lombard General Vs v K Dyavaiah S/O Late… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

M/S Icici Lombard General Vs v K Dyavaiah S/O Late… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and award dated 23.07.2012 in MVC No.21/2012 set aside; claim petition dismissed; trial court records to be sent back with a copy of the judgment; amount in deposit, if any, to be transmitted to the Tribunal for refund to the Insurance Company.

Issue for consideration

Whether the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-12-H-2623 was involved in the accident of 27.01.2008 and whether the death of Sarojamma resulted therefrom, the facts of the accident and death being otherwise not in serious dispute. +2 more

Court's answer

Mere delay in lodging the complaint cannot by itself be a reason to suspect the claimant's case; the reason for the delay was recorded in Ex.P.1, and had there been an intent to falsely implicate the vehicle it could have been done within the three days before the complaint.

Ratio / Principle

PW.1 (not an eyewitness) testified she learnt the vehicle's registration number on the day of the accident and informed the police the same day; this contradicts the record, since Ex.P.1 (FIR) records an unknown vehicle and the case was registered days later; that portion of her evidence is not reliable.

Key takeaways

Claimant No.3 Nagaraj, identified in the charge sheet as one of four eyewitnesses and competent to depose on the accident and the vehicle number, was withheld without explanation; the claimants appear to have deliberately suppressed material witnesses, from which the Court inferred he would otherwise have stated the truth about the manner of the accident.ratio¶64
PW.1 and PW.2 gave inconsistent accounts of when the vehicle number reached the police (next day versus about a week later), and the charge sheet and its enclosures do not corroborate either account; their evidence on involvement is therefore not reliable.ratio¶74

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Insurer's appeal (u/s 173(1) MV Act) against the MACT Channapatna award dated 23.07.2012 granting Rs.2,36,000/- with 6% interest to the family of Sarojamma, who died on 29.01.2008 after being hit on 27.01.2008 on B.M. Road near Vandaraguppe by motorcycle KA-12-H-2623. The Court (Umesh M Adiga J) accepted that mere delay in lodging the complaint is not by itself suspicious, but held the claimants failed to prove even prima facie the vehicle's involvement: PW.1's claim to have known the registration number on the day of the accident contradicted Ex.P.1 (an unknown vehicle); eyewitness claimant No.3 Nagaraj, named in the charge sheet, was withheld without explanation, indicating deliberate suppression of material witnesses; PW.1/PW.2's accounts of when the number was reported were uncorroborated by the charge-sheet papers; the Investigating Officer avoided the Court despite a warrant; and the inspection report and Mahazar showed no vehicle damage. The charge sheet's presumptive value having been rebutted, the Tribunal erred in resting its finding solely on PW.2's evidence and the charge against the rider. Appeal allowed; award set aside; claim petition dismissed; deposit, if any, to be refunded to the insurer. Precedents Veerappa v. Siddappa (ILR 2009 KAR 3562) and Bajaj Allianz v. B.C. Kumar (ILR 2009 KAR 2921) were recited by the appellant's counsel on fraud and false claims.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10869 OF 2012 (MV)

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

M/S. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PRESTIJ CAMREK NO 62/1, 2ND FLOOR, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026 PRESENT ADDRESS: NO. 89, 2^ND FLOOR, S.V.R COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA, BANGALORE - 560068 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.K S LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A M VENKATESH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

V. K. DYAVAIAH S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED 65 YEARS SINCE DEAED REP BY HIS LRS,

SMT MANGALAGOWRI D/O V K DYAVAIAH AGED 34 YEARS

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

NAGARAJU S/O DYAVAIAH AGED 40 YEARS

D MANJUNATH S/O V. K. DYAVAIAH AGED 38 YEARS

D NANJAPPA S/O V. K. DYAVAIAH AGED 36 YEARS

ALL ARE R/O VANDARAGUPPE KARIKALADODDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK.

ASHOK

S/O DODDAIAH R/O REVINAMADODDI SUGGANAHALLI POST RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AND TALUK

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. N GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2., VIDE ORDER DATED 12.08.2015, R1 AND R2 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R3 AND R4 R5 SERVED)

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.07.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.21/2012(OLD NO.299/2008 & 250/2008) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, MACT, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,36,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Insurer, challenging the judgment and award dated 23.07.2012 passed by Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Channapattana in MVC No.21/2012 (Old MVC No.299/2008 and 250/2008).

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

The Brief facts of the case are that on 27.01.2008, at about 07.15 p.m., the deceased Sarojamma was walking on the left side of the B. M. Road near Vandraguppe, at that time, she met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-12-H-2623. Due to the impact, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries. She was shifted to hospital and while undergoing treatment she succumbed to injuries on 29.01.2008. It is further contended that the deceased was aged 54 years. She was an agriculturist and

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

coolie and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Claimants were her husband and children and they prayed to award a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent

No.2 is the insurer of the offending motorcycle. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the contents of the claim petition and also denied the involvement of the offending vehicle. It is the further case of respondent No.2 that complaint was lodged after a delay of 3 days and even vehicle number was not mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, the said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case after lapse of 4 months without any basis and hence prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

On the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

Claimants to prove their case examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and marked Exs.P.1 to 7.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW.1 and marked Exs.R.1 to 5. The Tribunal after hearing the matter awarded compensation of Rs.2,36,000/- and directed insurer to pay the said amount. The same is challenged in the present appeal by the insurer.

I have heard the arguments. The learned counsel for the appellant, on going through the materials available on record contended that, it is evident that the said vehicle was allegedly involved in the accident in collusion between the claimants and owner and police. Complaint was lodged three days after the accident. The owner of the vehicle is said to have produced the vehicle at the police station voluntarily, without any notice. Furthermore, the vehicle number was disclosed to the Investigating Officer only four months after the registration of the case. These facts clearly suggest that the vehicle was falsely implicated. Respondent No.2 made an effort to examine the Investigating Officer, but despite the issuance of a warrant, he failed to appear before the

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

Court. Instead, Respondent No.2 examined one of his own officers and submitted an investigation report. The report indicates that fraud was played on the insurer and that the vehicle insured with Respondent No.2 was falsely implicated in the accident.

The learned advocate for respondent No.2 further contended that evidence of PW.2 is not trustworthy. Claimant No.3 is said to be a friend of PW.2 and was also present at the time of the accident. However, PW.3 did not mention the vehicle number when filing the complaint, nor did PW.2 inform Claimant No.3 of the vehicle’s registration number. All these facts raise serious doubts regarding the involvement of the said vehicle in the accident. Therefore, it is prayed that the claim petition be dismissed by allowing the present appeal.

Learned counsel for claimants contended that

the FIR was registered after 3 days and reasons for delay was mentioned in the FIR. During the course of the

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

investigation, the Investigating Officer identified the registration number of the vehicle, and the rider of the motorcycle was charge-sheeted. Neither the insurer, the rider, nor the owner challenged the said charge sheet. The claimants examined the eyewitness, PW.2, who stated about his knowledge of the vehicle’s registration number. The mere fact that he provided this information to the police after a delay of four months cannot be a valid ground to disbelieve him. Furthermore, nothing was brought out in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. For these reasons, it is prayed that the contention of the appellant be rejected.

He further submitted that the Tribunal in the impugned judgment discussed in this regard and rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence of rider of the motorcycle or involvement of the said vehicle and awarded a just and reasonable amount of compensation. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

Facts of the accident and death of

Smt.Sarojamma in a vehicle accident is not in serious dispute. The only contention of respondent No.2 is that the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-12-H-2623 was not involved in the accident. It is true that there was a delay in filing the complaint and a mere delay in lodging the complaint cannot be a reason to suspect the case of the claimant. The reason for delay in filing of the complaint is mentioned in Ex.P.1. If there had been an intention to falsely implicate the vehicle, it could have been done within three days of the incident.

PW.1 is not an eyewitness to the accident.

However, in her cross-examination, she stated that she came to know the vehicle’s registration number on the day of the accident through Mahadeva, Manju and Channakeshava. PW.1 further stated that she gave a statement to the police on the day of the accident. If the said evidence of PW.1 is true, it raises the question as to why the police did not register a case on the same day,

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

and why Exhibit P.1 records that an unknown vehicle hit Sarojamma while she was walking. Therefore, the said statement made by PW.1, is contrary to the documents available on record, thus, the said portion of the evidence of PW.1 is not reliable.

According to the Investigating Officer there were 4 eye witnesses including claimant No.3. Claimant No.3 was a competent person to depose before the Court regarding the fact of accident or involvement of the vehicle or even to say that he had not seen the registration number of the vehicle. The reason why he was not produced before the Court to give evidence in support of the claim petition has not been explained. The lady who was examined before the Court, was not an eye witness to the incident, and she gave a statement different from the contents of the FIR or the charge sheet. It appears that claimants have deliberately suppressed the material witnesses from the Court. It leads to an inference that if the said Nagaraj was examined before the Court, then he

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

would have stated the truth before the Court regarding the

manner in which the accident occurred.

PW.2, in his evidence, corroborated the presence of Nagaraj at the scene of the accident and stated that he had noted the vehicle number in his diary. According to his evidence, Nagaraj was his very close friend. However, he did not share the vehicle number with Nagaraj, nor did Nagaraj inquire with others who were present at the scene, to ascertain the vehicle number, if they had seen it. PW.2 further stated that he was out of town for about a week and informed the police of the vehicle number only upon his return i.e., after a week. The statements of these witnesses are not on record; therefore, it remains unclear when exactly the eyewitnesses informed the police about the involvement of the vehicle. If PW.2 gave vehicle number after a week of accident, then why police waited for four months to refer the said vehicle number in the charge sheet. PW.1 has stated that she gave narration of accident and vehicle

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

number to police on the next day of accident and PW.2 states that a week after he gave vehicle number to police. But charge sheet and its enclosures produced before Court do not corroborate the same and inconsistent to their evidence. Hence, the said evidence is not reliable.

The insurer is said to have attempted to summon the Investigating Officer to seek clarification regarding the investigation. The Trial Court's order reveals that, despite the issuance of a warrant, the Officer's presence could not be secured. It is unfortunate that the Tribunal did not take appropriate steps against the concerned witness for disregarding the authority and process of the Court. He tried to avoid from appearing before the Court, which indicates that all is not well in his investigation and therefore, he was hesitating to appear before the Court and say the truth regarding the investigation done by him. Therefore, the materials placed on record by the claimants are not consistent,

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

corroborative and they fail to inspire confidence in the evidence presented before the Court.

It is true that in a case of motor vehicle

compensation matters there is no need to prove beyond reasonable doubt and it is sufficient to prove a prima facie case. In the normal circumstances, filing of the charge sheet itself is sufficient to believe that the accident occurred due to involvement of the vehicle mentioned in the charge sheet. It has got a presumptive value, but once it is rebutted and it is shown to the Tribunal that all is not well in the investigation, the Tribunal ought to have considered it and assessed the evidence placed on the record. The Tribunal, in this case, did not look into the cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.2. The Tribunal also did not notice that the so called eye witness whose name was mentioned in the charge sheet as well as in the evidence of PW.2 as an eye witness did not enter the witness box to support his case or even to give a complaint to the police.

13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

The learned advocate for appellant has

reiterated as follows:

i) Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another¹

"15. Fraus et jus munquam cohabitant, Fraud and justice never dwell together, is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. A judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Courts is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, the Courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practised upon that Court. Similarly, where the Court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order".

ii) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company

Limited Vs. B.C.Kumar and Another²

"17. The M.A.C.Ts. are constituted not only to allow the claim petitions which are genuine in nature but, at the same time, the Tribunals also will have to keep in view that compensation should not be awarded mechanically in every case and to accept the case of the claimant as if all that the

1 ILR 2009 KAR 3562

2 ILR 2009 KAR 2921

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

claimant says about the accident and the injuries is a truthful one. On the other hand, there is a great responsibility on the part of the claims Tribunal to ensure that no false claims are allowed by it and it is in this context that the claims Tribunals are required to examine the evidence before it very carefully. Merely because a claimant in a particular case comes out with the evidence that the driver of the vehicle is convicted on his pleading guilty, the Tribunal should not go by the plead guilty factor alone, but it is required to appreciate the evidence before it from every angle and if there is a good reason to question the very case of the claimant or doubt the very manner of the accident, in such cases, the Tribunal will have to view the factor of pleading guilty along with the entire evidence placed before it and make an assessment of the whole situation".

18. In this case also there are materials to believe

that to claim compensation a vehicle number was given

after 4 months from the date of accident though it appears

to be a hit and run case.

Respondent No.1 was the owner of the vehicle

and also the rider of the said vehicle at the time of accident. A report prepared by the so called Investigating Officer of the Insurance Company. Respondent No.2 did not examined him before the Court. He even did not

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

inform the said fact to the concerned police station. This may not be of much relevance, as the rider cannot be compelled to plead guilty before this Court or to support the charge sheet filed against him. According to the evidence of PW.2, both the vehicle and its rider fell after the accident. However, the motor vehicle inspection report does not indicate any damage to the said vehicle, nor does the Mahazar reflect any such damage. This further adds to the doubts surrounding the claimants’ case. Therefore, the claimants have failed to establish, even prima facie, that the accident occurred due to the involvement of the said vehicle or that the deceased, Sarojamma, died as a result thereof. The Tribunal failed to consider the aforementioned facts and, solely based on the evidence of PW.2 and the charge laid against the rider of the motorcycle, held that the accident was proved by the claimant. The said finding is erroneous. Hence, call for interference by this Court.

For above said discussions, I proceed to pass the following order:

16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:28414 MFA No. 10869 of 2012

HC-KAR

ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed .

ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 23.07.2012, passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Channapattana in MVC No.21/2012 is set aside.

iii) Claim petition is dismissed.

iv) Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment.

v) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal to refund the same to Insurance Company on due acknowledgement.

Sd/-

(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13