Dismissed¶69

Krishnamurthy v. Ravisha H C

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2025MFA/2108/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (NC: 2025:KHC:18938); MFA No.2108 of 2014 (MV-I); decided 04.06.2025 by Justice Umesh M Adiga; claimant's appeal under S.173(1) MV Act against dismissal of MVC No.648/2012 by II Addl. District Judge & MACT, Chikmagalur; vehicle falsely implicated; MLC register history of RTA between jeep and bike; patient conscious; RW-1 doctor cross-examination; FIR version proved incorrect; appeal dismissed; Tribunal award dated 7.12.2013 confirmed; Oriental Insurance Co.; no compensation awarded.

What did the court decide?

Point No.1 is answered in the negative: the Tribunal, having considered the facts in detail, came to the right conclusion that involvement of the vehicle in the accident is not proved, and the High Court finds no reason to interfere with that finding. ¶64

Krishnamurthy Vs Ravisha H C — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case just to claim compensation? +1 more

¶57

Court's answer

¶64

Ratio / Principle

The hospital records (MLC register, inpatient case file and discharge sheet of M.G. Hospital, Chikmagalur) noted a history of road traffic accident between jeep and bike on 07.12.2010 and indicated the patient was conscious, contradicting the claimant's version.

¶59

Key takeaways

RW-1 (doctor) stated in cross-examination that the claimant was conscious and had himself given the hospital statement; the appellant's contention that his brother gave wrong information to the Medical Officer was not acceptable, the brother not having been examined.ratio¶63
The story of the accident as set out in the FIR is proved to be incorrect.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal under S.173(1) MV Act by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 7.12.2013 in MVC No.648/2012 (II Addl. District Judge and MACT, Chikmagalur) dismissing his claim for compensation for injuries allegedly sustained on 07.12.2010 when jeep KA-18-M-2713 hit him while he was walking. Held, dismissing the appeal: the Tribunal rightly found that involvement of the offending vehicle was not proved — the MLC register, inpatient case file and discharge sheet of M.G. Hospital recorded a history of road traffic accident 'between jeep and bike' on 07.12.2010 and showed the patient was conscious; RW-1 (doctor) stated in cross-examination that the claimant himself had given the statement; the contention that the claimant's brother gave wrong information to the Medical Officer was unacceptable, the brother not being examined; consequently the story of the accident in the FIR stood proved incorrect. Point No.1 answered in the negative; the Tribunal's judgment and award stands confirmed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:18938 MFA No. 2108 of 2014

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2108 OF 2014(MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KRISHNAMURTHY S/O DASABHOVI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS COOLIE RESIDENT OF MARATIGERE BHOVI COLONY BANAVARA HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK-573 103 HASSAN-DISTRICT

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

RAVISHA H.C S/O CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDENT OF HEDADALU VILLAGE VASTHARE HOBLI CHIKMAGALUR TALUK-577 101 CHIKMAGALUR

¶16

SMT. G.H CHANDRAVATHI W/O LATE CHANNABASAVEGOWDA MAJOR KAIMARA POST CHIKMAGALUR TALUK-577 101 CHIKMAGALUR

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18938 MFA No. 2108 of 2014

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

3. THE MANAGER

¶20

THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INS CO.,LTD NAGNIRMAL COMPLEX BASAVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHIKMAGALUR TALUK-577 101 CHIKMAGALUR

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3, VIDE ORDER DATED 06.11.2019, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH, R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 7.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.648/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT., CHIKMAGALUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 7^th December 2013, passed by

¶28

the II Addl.District Judge and M.A.C.T., Chikmagalur, (for

¶29

short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.648/2012.

¶30

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

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18938 MFA No. 2108 of 2014

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Brief facts of the case of the claimant are that, on 07.12.2010, at about 7.00 a.m., claimant was walking along Doddamagaravalli–Aldur road in Doddamagaravalli village. At that time, the driver of the jeep bearing registration No.KA-18-M-2713, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment at M.G. Hospital, Chikmagaluru and spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. With these reasons, claimant prayed for awarding of compensation.

¶34

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 being owners and insurer of the offending Jeep. They denied contentions of claimant and they also contended that the vehicle has been falsely implicated in the case to claim compensation. Respondent No.3 denied its liability to pay compensation. With these reasons, they prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:18938 MFA No. 2108 of 2014

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

¶39

Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶40

The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the claimant. Claimant examined himself as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and marked 14 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-14 and Exs.C-1 to C-3. The respondents examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked three documents as Exs.R-1 to R-3.

¶41

After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was not caused by the offending vehicle. The Tribunal also found that material facts had been suppressed by the claimant. The claimant had stated before the Medical Officer that he met with an accident while going on a motorcycle and accident had taken place between motorcycle and the jeep. Therefore, his contention that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep is false and the said contention is not acceptable. Accordingly,

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18938 MFA No. 2108 of 2014

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

answering issue No.1 in the negative, the Tribunal ultimately dismissed the claim petition by the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred the present appeal.

¶45

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsels

¶46

appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.

¶47

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant

¶48

vehemently contends that the criminal case was registered and after investigation of the matter, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet. The claimant had sustained grievous injuries and was in shock and pain. He was unconscious and he has not made any statement before the doctor. His brother who accompanied him to the hospital, might have given wrong information to the Medical Officer. Only on that basis, the entire case of the claimant cannot be thrown out of the Court. There are no materials to overcome the charge sheet filed by the concerned Investigating Officer. With these reasons, he

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18938 MFA No. 2108 of 2014

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

prayed to allow the appeal and to award just and reasonable compensation.

¶52

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurer submits that Tribunal has discussed the facts in detail, as well as stated the reasons for dismissal of the claim petition. There are no reasons to interfere in the said findings. He further submits that the respondents have examined RW-1 doctor, who had treated the injured claimant. Exs.R-1 and R-2 clearly reveals that accident had taken place between jeep and motorcycle. The claimant was not having any licence to drive any vehicle. Therefore, just to claim compensation, the claimant manipulated the records and gave wrong information to the police. The investigating Officer has not meticulously considered the records before submitting the charge sheet. Mere submission of the charge sheet does not mean that its contents are true and correct and it shall be accepted. Respondent rebutted the presumption of filing charge sheet. The Tribunal on appreciating the evidence,

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18938 MFA No. 2108 of 2014

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

accepted the contentions of the respondents. Hence, there is no need to reconsider the same. With these reasons, respondents prayed to dismiss the appeal with costs.

¶56

11. Following points arises for consideration:

¶57

(i) Whether the Tribunal is erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case just to claim compensation?

¶58

(ii) What order?

¶59

12. The case of the claimant is as stated above. Undisputedly, he was initially admitted to District Government Hospital (M.G.Hospital), Chikmagalur. Noting in the MLC register reveals that “Patient case – history of RTA i.e., between jeep and bike on 07.12.2010 at 8.00 p.m. near Doddamagaravalli”. The records also indicate that the patient was conscious. Even the inpatient case file and discharge sheet of the said hospital reveals the very same fact. Respondent No.3, examined RW-1. RW-1 in his

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18938 MFA No. 2108 of 2014

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

evidence supported the contention of the insurer. During cross-examination, nothing was brought out to discard his evidence. Therefore, the story of the accident as fabricated in the FIR, is proved to be incorrect.

¶63

13. The contention of the appellant that his brother had given such a statement before the medical officer is also not acceptable. RW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that the claimant was conscious and he himself had given the statement. Moreover, brother of the claimant was not examined to substantiate the said contentions.

¶64

14. The Tribunal considering these facts in detail, came to a right conclusion that involvement of the vehicle in the accident is not proved. I do not find any reason to interfere in the said finding.

¶65

15. For the aforesaid discussions, point No.1 is answered in the negative and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶66

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18938 MFA No. 2108 of 2014

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i) The Appeal is dismissed.

¶70

ii) The judgment and award dated 7^th December 2013, passed in MVC.No.648/2012, by the II Addl.District Judge and M.A.C.T., Chikmagaluru, s tands confirmed.

¶71

Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.

¶72

Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶73

bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Krishnamurthy v. Ravisha H C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnamurthy v. Ravisha H C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harisha Vs Nadigara Murugendrappa

Sri.Jagadeesh Ram Prajapath Vs Nayaz Ahmed

Venkatesh Vs Mr R Kulandaival

Chandra Naik Vs Mohammed Ujil

Sri Poovani Moolya Vs Imraspasha

Vinod Vs the Manager