United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Goudappa… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Goudappa… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant-insurer; the Tribunal's judgment and award stands, and the amount in deposit, if any, is to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement.

Issue for consideration

Whether the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-29/R-5436 was involved in the accident or was falsely implicated merely to make a claim of compensation. +1 more

Court's answer

The wound certificate and disability certificate prove that the claimant was admitted to the Hospital with a history of accident; the claimant thereby proved his injuries and the involvement of the motorcycle on a preponderance of probabilities.

Ratio / Principle

Mere delay in lodging the complaint is not, by itself, a ground to hold the entire accident false or to reject the claim petition; the delay falls to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Key takeaways

The statutory police investigation resulted in a chargesheet against the rider of the motorcycle; the appellant did not allege a false chargesheet laid for any ulterior gain, and the FIR, complaint, spot panchanama, chargesheet and medical records together proved that the claimant suffered injuries in the road accident.ratio¶40
Where the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and is admitted to hospital immediately, getting medical treatment to the injured is the paramount thing rather than lodging a complaint before the police.ratio¶39
The appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal is justified and legal and needs no interference by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA (MV-I) under S.173(1) MV Act, 1988 by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 07.01.2012 of the Member, MACT-VII, Bilagi, in MVC No.43/2010 (compensation to claimant Goudappa Huchchappa Baradi for injuries caused when motorcycle KA-29/R-5436 allegedly dashed him on 27.06.2009), on the ground that the motorcycle was not involved in the accident and was falsely implicated, evidenced by an eight-day delay in lodging the complaint/FIR (lodged 04.07.2009). Held: mere delay in lodging a complaint is not by itself a ground to pronounce the entire accident false or to reject the claim petition, the delay being considered on the facts and circumstances of each case (relying on Ravi V/s Badrinarayana and Ors., (2011) 14 SCC 693); where the injured has suffered grievous injuries and is hospitalised immediately, getting medical treatment is paramount over prompt lodgement of complaint; the statutory investigation culminated in a chargesheet against the rider with no allegation of a false chargesheet for ulterior gain, and the FIR, complaint, spot panchanama, chargesheet and medical records (wound and disability certificates recording hospital admission with history of accident) established the claimant's injuries and the motorcycle's involvement on a preponderance of probabilities. The Tribunal's appreciation of evidence was held justified and needing no interference; appeal dismissed, with any amount in deposit to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7671 MFA No. 22127 of 2012

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22127 OF 2012 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BAGALKOT, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1563, SEETA SMRUTHI, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

GOUDAPPA HUCHCHAPPA BARADI, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BAGALKOT, NOW RESIDING AT SHIRAGUPPI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

GANESH NINGAYYA HIRENNAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ARAKERI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

RAMANNA HANAMANTH ADAVI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND RIDER OF MOTOR CYCLE, R/O: SORAGAVI, TQ: MUDHOL.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. BASAVARAJ S. BYAKOD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 07-012012 PASSED IN MVC NO.43/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-VII, BILAGI.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7671 MFA No. 22127 of 2012

HC-KAR

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, by the Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 07.01.2012, passed in MVC No.43/2010, on the file of Member, MACT-VII, Bilagi (for short, ‘Tribunal’), on the ground that the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-29/R-5436 was not involved in the accident.

Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 27.06.2009, the claimant/respondent No.1 had been to Shiraguppi to recover the due amount from the customers. When the claimant was proceeding towards farm house of Guralingayya and crossing the road of Kataraki to Kundaragi, at that time, the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-29/R-5436 ridden by its rider came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant. Thus, the claimant has sustained fracture injuries. The Tribunal upon the claim petition filed, has awarded compensation and

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7671 MFA No. 22127 of 2012

HC-KAR

fastened liability on the insurance company to pay compensation.

It is the ground urged by the appellant/insurance company and also the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company is that the motorcycle was not involved in the accident and it was falsely implicated just to make claim of compensation. There is delay of 8 days in lodging complaint before the police. Therefore, the motorcycle is falsely implicated into the case. Therefore, prays to set aside the judgment and award by allowing the appeal.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants justified the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

The accident is caused on 27.06.2009 and admittedly, complaint is lodged after eight days i.e., on 04.07.2009. Therefore, there is delay of eight days in lodging complaint and registering FIR. Just because the delay in lodging complaint, is not the ground to say that the entire

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7671 MFA No. 22127 of 2012

HC-KAR

accident is false. As per judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi V/s Badrinarayana and Ors., (2011) 14 Supreme Court Cases 693, the delay in lodging complaint could be considered on the facts and circumstances in each case. It is stated that the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and therefore, he was admitted to the Hospital immediately. The paramount thing is to get medical treatment to the injured rather to lodge complaint before the police. Ex.P1 is the complaint and FIR, Ex.P4-is the spot panchanama and Ex.P5-is the chargesheet.

Upon the statutory investigation, the police have laid chargesheet against the rider of the motorcycle. The statutory investigation has its own significance to find out the accused in the background of offence alleged. It is not the case of the appellant/insurance company that, a false chargesheet is laid for any ulterior gain. Therefore, just because there is delay, that cannot be a ground to reject the claim petition. But all other evidence with police records i.e., FIR, complaint, spot panchanama, chargesheet and medical records, proved the fact that the claimant suffered injuries in

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7671 MFA No. 22127 of 2012

HC-KAR

the road accident as discussed above. The medical records i.e., wound certificate and disability certificate prove the fact that the claimant was admitted to the Hospital with the history of accident. Therefore, when the claimant is able to prove that he has sustained injuries in the accident and involvement of the motorcycle as stated in the accident on all its preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the appreciation of evidence from the Tribunal is justified and legal one which needs no interference by this Court.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The amount in

deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the concerned tribunal for disbursement.

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

RKM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 56