Sree Harsha B P Vs Sri Ramesh B S

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:361 MFA No. 3943 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3943 OF 2013(MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SREE HARSHA B. P., S/O PUTTASWAMY SHETTY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, NO.404, 2^ND C CROSS, 14^TH BLOCK, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, NAGARABHAVI 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 072.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. K. N. HARISH BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. RAMESH B. S., S/O SWAMY, NO # 574, 5^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, GODAVARI RIVER ROAD, DHOBI GHAT, BANGALORE- 560 019.

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2^ND FLOOR,JP & DEVI JAMBUKESWARA ARCADE, 69, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE- 52

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED)

¶15

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.3365/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:361 MFA No. 3943 of 2013

¶18

CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard Sri.K.N.Harish Babu, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶23

Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.3365/2011 dated 14.12.2012. This is the claimant's appeal.

¶24

The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in total on the ground that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. The version of the appellant is that on 29.12.2012 while he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA.41 Q.3156 and when he reached near 2^nd Cross junction, Bengaluru, an auto-rickshaw bearing

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:361 MFA No. 3943 of 2013

¶27

Registration No.KA.05 D.8354 came at a high speed, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle, due to which he fell down and sustained injuries.

¶28

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant failed to prove the happening of accident and that he sustained injuries in the course of said accident.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was delay of 1 & 1/2 days in giving complaint to police. The appellant sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious. He was shifted to hospital and was kept in ICU for a long period. His father was attending him and therefore intimation to police could not be given immediately. Learned counsel also states that delay of 1 & 1/2 days in lodging the complaint is not inordinate. Learned counsel further submits that after giving complaint to police, police investigated into the matter, seized both the vehicles, sent the vehicles for inspection by a Motor Vehicles Inspector, examined relevant witnesses and filed charge sheet against the driver of the auto.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:361 MFA No. 3943 of 2013

¶32

However, without considering all these aspects, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition unjustifiably. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the appeal and award compensation as sought for.

¶33

Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy representing respondent No.2 on the other hand states that all the medical records were altered to show that the appellant took treatment for the injuries sustained by him. The same was observed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. Learned counsel also states that if there was a road traffic accident, on admitting the appellant in hospital, the hospital authorities would send intimation to the concerned police. However, no such intimation is sent. That itself establishes that the appellant did not sustain any injuries in a road traffic accident. Learned counsel also states that basing on the discrepancies, the Court found in the medical records and having regard to the lack of evidence with regard to the occurrence of accident, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the petition.

¶34

Sri.K.N.Harish Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, on hearing the learned counsel for respondent No.2,

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:361 MFA No. 3943 of 2013

¶37

submits that sufficient material is available with the appellant to show that he sustained injuries in the road traffic accident only. Learned counsel states that in case the Court grants an opportunity to the appellant to put-forth his evidence, the appellant will examine the concerned police officials and will also produce all the medical evidence to show that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and took treatment. Learned counsel seeks the Court to give fair opportunity to the appellant to produce such evidence by remanding the matter to the concerned Tribunal. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 did not raise any serious objection for remanding the matter.

¶38

Admittedly, Ex.P1 complaint was given to police giving narration about the occurrence of accident and the involvement of the auto in question. A perusal of the impugned order reveals elaborate discussion with regard to alteration of the name of the appellant in the relevant medical record. However, having considering the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellant and as Motor Vehicles Act is a Welfare Legislation aimed at providing monetary relief to the injured as well as to the dependents, in case the person who is involved in the accident dies, this Court considers desirable to

¶39

6 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:361 MFA No. 3943 of 2013

¶41

give fair opportunity to the appellant to establish his version through further evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) The order that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.3365/2011 dated 14.12.2012 is set aside.

¶44

(ii) The matter is remanded to the same Tribunal for fresh disposal.

¶45

(iii) Both parties are granted liberty to adduce further evidence. On receiving such evidence, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter afresh.

¶46

(iv) Registry is directed to return the records to the Tribunal.

¶47

(v) Both parties are directed to make their appearance through their respective counsels before the Tribunal on 22.02.2025.

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:361 MFA No. 3943 of 2013

¶49