Mallesha Vs Rudranna — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mallesha Vs Rudranna — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the claimant; the judgment and award dated 14 September 2015 in MVC.No.1124/2013 passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VI, Shivamogga stands confirmed, and the Registry was directed to send back the records to the Tribunal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident was not occasioned by involvement of vehicle bearing registration No.KA14-X-8376? +1 more

Court's answer

The claimant's contention that he was not conscious and had not given a statement to the doctor is not supported by the medical records; Ex.P-7 records that he was conscious and oriented when admitted to hospital.

Ratio / Principle

The first information given to the hospital within a short time after the accident is reliable, as the chances of fabrication of the story at that stage are less; the later changed version is treated as an afterthought adopted once the claimant realised that a self-fall case would not fetch compensation.

Key takeaways

The insurer's contention that, after discussions and deliberations and in collusion with the owner, rider of the motorcycle and police, the claimant changed the manner of the incident and filed a complaint with a fabricated story cannot be ruled out; the manner in which the charge-sheet was filed corroborates it.ratio¶61
The statement made before the doctor is reliable, because either the claimant or PW-3 gave the information, leaving less scope for addition or subtraction in it.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Claimant's appeal under S.173(1) MV Act against dismissal of his motor-accident compensation claim (MVC.No.1124/2013, Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VI, Shivamogga; award dated 14.09.2015). Claim case: on 21.08.2013 at about 12.45 p.m., while walking towards Mantapa Clinic, Kuvempu road, the claimant (mechanic-agriculturist earning Rs.15,000/- p.m.) was allegedly struck by motorcycle No.KA-14-X-8376 ridden rashly and negligently, suffering fractures of the right tibia and fibula and permanent disability. The Tribunal, relying on Exs.P-2, P-4 and P-7, disbelieved PWs.1 and 3 because the same-day hospital history differed from the police-case version, and dismissed the claim. Confirming the Tribunal, the High Court held: (i) the history first given to the hospital shortly after the accident ('skid & fall from bike') is reliable, chances of fabrication being less, and Ex.P-7 shows the claimant was conscious and oriented, negating his unconsciousness plea; (ii) the statement before the doctor is reliable as it came from the claimant or PW-3 with little room for addition or subtraction; (iii) the later 'hit by a bike' version was adopted after the claimant realised a self-fall case would yield no compensation, and the insurer's owner-rider-police collusion theory cannot be ruled out, the charge-sheet corroborating it; (iv) in CC No.4886/13 the accused, though summoned for 24.12.2013, appeared earlier (recorded as 08.06.2013), pleaded guilty and paid fine despite service of summons, indicating collusion to help the claimant. Held: the claimant utterly failed to prove the vehicle's involvement and is not entitled to compensation; no interference called for. Appeal dismissed; award of 14.09.2015 confirmed.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20753 MFA No. 471 of 2016

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2016 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

MALLESHA S/O LAXMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, MECHANIC AND AGRICULTURIST, R/AT KALLIHAL VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 303.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH M.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

RUDRANNA S/O HALAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OWNER CUM RIDER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-14-X-8376, R/O HARIGE VILLAGE, VIDHYANAGAR POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 201.

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. (POLICY NO.35100731126201731664, VALID FROM 09/10/2012 TO 08/10/2013.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 22/07/2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICINET)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20753 MFA No. 471 of 2016

HC-KAR

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1124/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VI, SHIVAMOGGA. DISMISSING THE PETITION OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 14.09.2015 passed in MVC.No.1124/2013, by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T.-VI, Shivamogga, (for short `Tribunal').

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 21.08.2013, at about 12.45 p.m., claimant was walking towards Mantapa Clinic, Kuvempu road, at that time, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-14-X-8376, by its rider. As a result of which, he sustained fractures of right tibia and

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20753 MFA No. 471 of 2016

HC-KAR

fibula. He was shifted to Nanjappa hospital, Shivamogga, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient for a week. He has spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. The claimant was mechanic of electronic goods and also an agriculturist, earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability, which has affected his earning capacity. With these reasons, he prayed for awarding compensation.

The respondent No.2-insurer denied the contentions of the claim petitioner. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

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

The claimant to prove his case examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 18 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-18. Respondents have marked one document at Ex.R-1.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:20753 MFA No. 471 of 2016

HC-KAR

The Tribunal after hearing both parties, held

that the accident had not taken place as stated in the claim petition. The Tribunal by relying upon Exs.P-2, P-4 and P-7, held that the accident as narrated by the claimant and his relative before the Medical Officer is totally different from the case made out before the police. On that basis, it disbelieved the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 and dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as respondent No.2insurer.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that manner in which accident occurred is stated in Ex.P-2. On that basis, police investigated the crime. PWs.1 and 3 have stated about the accident in their evidence. In their cross-examination, nothing was brought out to discard their evidence. The respondent No.2 did not rebut the evidence of PWs.1 and 3; The rider

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20753 MFA No. 471 of 2016

HC-KAR

of the motorcycle pleaded guilty before the Court and paid fine. These facts are sufficient to prove that the accident occurred in the manner as described in the criminal case. There is no evidence to suggest that the claimant himself had given a statement before the doctor that he fell down from a motorcycle and sustained injuries. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the same, but, it erroneously rejected the said evidence.

10. Learned counsel for appellant further argued that claimant sustained fractures of both bones of right leg and other injuries. He has suffered permanent disability. To prove the same, he examined PW-2. Considering the same, the Tribunal ought to have awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation. Hence prayed to allow the appeal.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer submits that Exs.P-4 and P-7 clearly reveals that the information given to the police is completely contrary to

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20753 MFA No. 471 of 2016

HC-KAR

the facts stated before the doctor. Ex.P-7 reveals that the patient was conscious and oriented when he was admitted to the hospital. The medical records reveal that the accident had occurred due to "skid and fall from a bike at 12.45 p.m. on 21.08.2013 near Mantapa Clinic, Kuvempu road". The said fact was noted on the basis of information furnished by the claimant. Whatever statement was given to the police subsequently, all of it are fabricated, just to claim compensation. The Tribunal properly appreciated the material available before it and came to correct conclusion. It does not call for interference. Therefore prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. Following points arise for consideration :

(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that accident was not occurred by involvement of vehicle bearing registration No.KA14-X-8376?

(ii) What order?

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20753 MFA No. 471 of 2016

HC-KAR

Point Nos.1 and 2 :

13. My finding on the above point is in the negative for following reasons:

There is weight in the submission of learned advocate for the respondent. Undisputedly, claimant was taken to Nanjappa Hospital at Shivamogga immediately after he sustained injury. The accident occurred on 21.08.2013 around 12.45 p.m., and he was clinically examined by the doctor on the very same day around 1.10 p.m. The doctor noted the history of injury in Ex.P-4 and P-7 as, "Alleged H/o skid & fall from bike at about 12.45 pm on 21/8/13 near Mantapa Clinic, Kuvempur road, Shimoga". It appears, since history of injury was skid and fall from motor cycle, the medical officer did not inform the fact of accident to police.

14. On the next date of accident i.e., on 22.08.2013 it seems, after discussions and deliberations, claimant changed his version and again told to the doctor that

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20753 MFA No. 471 of 2016

HC-KAR

"he was hit by a bike while walking on the road". The contention of the claimant that he was not conscious and he had not given statement to the doctor, is not supported by the medical records. Contents of Ex.P-7 are contrary to the said submission. In Ex.P-7, it is mentioned that when the victim was admitted in the hospital, he was conscious and oriented. "No where it is mentioned that he was unconscious.

15. There was no reason to mention wrong information by the hospital in the medical records, unless such information was given. It was first information given to hospital within short time after the accident. At that time, chances of fabrication of story is less and it is reliable. On the next date, claimant must have come to know that if he makes out a case that he himself fell from motor cycle , he may not get compensation and hence history of incident must have been changed. Therefore, the contention of insurer that after discussions and deliberations and in collusion with owner, rider of motor

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:20753 MFA No. 471 of 2016

HC-KAR

cycle and police, changed the manner of incident and filed complaint with fabricated story, cannot be ruled out. The manner in which charge sheet was filed corroborates the same. Although in EX.P-4, there are two versions about the history of injury, however, the Investigating Officer did not examine the concerned data and got clarification.

16. According to the claimant, he himself along with PW-3 went to the hospital. Either claimant or PW-3 could have given such information to the doctor and it is noted in the same. Therefore, the said statement made before the doctor is reliable, because, there are less talks of addition or subtraction in the information.

17. The Court in CC No.4886/13, registered a case and issued summons to accused to appear on 24.12.2013. The alleged accused advanced the case before that date i.e., on 08.06.2013, pleaded guilty and paid fine. It appears, even summons was served on the accused. These facts leads to an inference that all of them colluded

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:20753 MFA No. 471 of 2016

HC-KAR

just to help claimant to get compensation. The Tribunal assigning valid reasons, rightly came to the conclusion that claimant has utterly failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle in the alleged accident. I do not find any reason to interfere in the said finding. Since the claimant is unable to prove that said vehicle was involved in the accident, he is not entitled to claim compensation from the respondents.

18. For the above said reasons, the aforesaid points

are answered in the negative. Accordingly, I proceeding to

pass the following:

ORDER

i) The Appeal is dismissed.

ii) The judgment and award dated 1 4^th September 2015, passed in MVC.No.1124/2013, by the P rl.Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VI, Shivamogga, stands confirmed.

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:20753 MFA No. 471 of 2016

HC-KAR

Registry is directed to send back the records along

with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.

Sd/-

(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7