Raghunandan N Vs the Managing Director — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Raghunandan N Vs the Managing Director — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the impugned judgment and award dismissing the claim petition was confirmed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that accident was not proved?

Court's answer

The claimant's explanation for the delay in reporting the accident — that the vehicle owner assured him payment of treatment expenses — was held to be 'not a believable story'; information of the accident reached the police only on 02.06.2012 via the FIR.

Ratio / Principle

As per RW-2's evidence no hospital intimated the police of the incident, the claimant produced no MLC/hospital-intimation records despite the matter pending before the Tribunal for nearly two years, and even in the appeal no documents or materials were produced to substantiate his contentions; hence there was no reason to hold the Tribunal's finding incorrect, arbitrary and unjustifiable.

Key takeaways

The point for determination was answered in the negative: the claimant/appellant failed to prove that he sustained injury in a vehicle accident involving the vehicle mentioned (KA-05-AB-4766).ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act, S.173(1) — Claimant's appeal for enhancement — Dismissal of claim petition upheld. The claimant, an employee of Tesco Hindustan Service Centre, alleged that on 08.05.2012 he sustained grievous injuries and permanent disability while travelling in a Tempo Traveller (KA-02-C-9178) owing to rash and negligent driving of a goods carriage (KA-05-AB-4766), and claimed Rs.12,00,000/-. The Tribunal (III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Bengaluru, SCCH-18) dismissed his claim in MVC No.6069/2012 (judgment and award dated 19.11.2014), answering issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. The High Court affirmed the dismissal: the FIR was lodged only on 02.06.2012, the plea that the vehicle owner had assured payment of medical expenses was 'not a believable story', no hospital had intimated the police and no MLC records were produced although the matter lay pending for nearly two years, and no additional material was furnished even in the appeal. Holding that the claimant failed to prove the accident, the Court answered the point in the negative, dismissed MFA No.1774/2015 and confirmed the impugned judgment and award.

NC: 2025:KHC:18637 MFA No. 1774 of 2015

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1774 OF 2015 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

RAGHUNANDAN N., S/O. N.R. NAGARAJA, AGED 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.252, DEVAVRINDA, 1^ST FLOOR, III CROSS, V MAIN ROAD, CANARA BANK COLONY, NAGARABHAVI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI K. V. SHYAMPRASADA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. VAISHNAVI PACKAGING (PVT) LTD., BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BEGUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076.

M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., GROUND FLOOR, NO.31, TBR TOWER, I CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD, NEAR BENGALURU STOCK EXCHANGE, BANGALORE - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

…RESPONDENTS

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18637 MFA No. 1774 of 2015

HC-KAR

(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI K.R. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.6069/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This is claimant's appeal against judgment and award dated 19.11.2014 passed by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (SCCH-18), (for short as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.6069/2012.

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

Brief facts of the case are that on 08.05.2012 at about 12.15 p.m., the petitioner was travelling in Tempo traveller bearing Reg.No.KA-02-C-9178 as an employee of Tesco Hindustan Service Centre, Bangalore. He met with an

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18637 MFA No. 1774 of 2015

HC-KAR

accident, due to rash and negligent driving of a LMV-Goods Carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AB-4766, by its driver. As a result of which, claimant sustained grievous injuries and he has been suffering from permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.

Respondent No.2-insurer in his written statement denied the contentions of the claim petition and denied his liability to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues for its determination.

The claimant to prove his case examined 2 witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. Respondents examined 2 witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and marked 10 documents as Exs.R1 to R10.

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. Since both the issues were answered in the negative, the Tribunal has not considered issue

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18637 MFA No. 1774 of 2015

HC-KAR

Nos.3 and 4 and by the impugned judgment, dismissed the claim petition. The same is challenged in the present appeal by the claimant.

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for

the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

The only question that arises for determination is:

"Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that accident was not proved?

It is the evidence of PW.1 that incident had taken place on 08.05.2012 at about 12.15 p.m. Admittedly, the claimant was working in Tesco Hindustan Service Centre, Whitefield, Bangalore, as a Financial Head. As per the evidence of PW-1 as well as petition averments, immediately after the accident, he was taken to Vydehi Hospital, at Bengaluru for treatment. From that hospital he was shifted to Sharavathi Hospital in Vijayanagar, Bangalore. After following certain procedures, he was shifted to Cauvery Orthopedic Centre, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Again in the said hospital, certain procedures were done and at last he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital. The records reveal that information of the accident

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18637 MFA No. 1774 of 2015

HC-KAR

was first time given to the concerned Police Station on 02.06.2012. Reasons for the delay is mentioned in the FIR and it is stated that the concerned owner of the vehicle assured the claimant that he would pay the treatment expenses and thereafter, he did not pay it. Thereafter, the claimant filed the complaint. The FIR also reveals that he was unaware about the name and where about of the owner as well as the registration number of the said vehicle. Under these circumstances, the contention of the claimant that he believed the version of the owner of the said vehicle that he would pay the medical expenses is also not a believable story.

As per the petition averments as well as the evidence of PW-1, he was visiting different hospital for treatment till 18.06.2012. As per the evidence of RW-2, none of the hospitals have sent the information to the police regarding the incident.

Normally, in case of treatment of victims of MLC cases, the concerned hospital would enquire regarding history and note down in the MLC registers. They also intimate to the concerned police. In this case, claimant did not produce any

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18637 MFA No. 1774 of 2015

HC-KAR

such records to prove his case. The matter was pending before the Tribunal for nearly about two years and nothing prevented the appellant from producing the said relevant documents. The Tribunal in detail considered all these facts and held that contention of the claimant that he sustained injuries in the vehicle accident is not believable. Even in this appeal, the appellant has not produced any documents or materials to substantiate his contentions. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that the finding of the Tribunal is incorrect, arbitrary and unjustifiable.

In view of the said reasons, claimant/appellant has failed to prove that he sustained injury in a vehicle accident, involving the vehicle mentioned supra. From the said discussion, I answer above point in the negative.

For the reasons discussed above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is dismissed.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18637 MFA No. 1774 of 2015

HC-KAR

ii. Impugned judgment and award dated 19.11.2014 passed in MVC No.6069/2012 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) is confirmed.

iii. Send back TCR with copy of judgment to trial Court.

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3