Nataraj G Vs Nagendra Reddy a — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

Nataraj G Vs Nagendra Reddy a — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the Tribunal's judgment dated 06.02.2015 in MVC No.2212/2013 was affirmed and the Registry directed to send back the TCR to the Tribunal forthwith.

Issue for consideration

Whether the offending Tata LGV goods tempo (Reg.No.KA-05-AD-2363) was involved in the accident of 26.12.2012, or whether, as found by the Tribunal, it was falsely implicated. +1 more

Court's answer

On the spot sketch and the IMV inspection report there was no dent or damage to either vehicle; had there been any contact between the two-wheeler and the four-wheeler, there would have been damage; the abrasions and fractures noted in the wound certificate (Ex.P.3) may have occurred due to a self fall - supporting the finding that the offending tempo was not involved in the incident.

Ratio / Principle

PW-1's version as admitted in his cross-examination dated 20.02.2014 and his own evidence dated 13.08.2014 contradict each other as to how the accident happened.

Key takeaways

The Tribunal properly appreciated the evidence and material on record and dismissed the claim petition; there are no merits to interfere with the impugned judgment and the appeal lacks merits.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 173(1) - Miscellaneous First Appeal (MV-I) by claimant seeking enhancement/set-aside of Tribunal's dismissal - Tribunal (VIII Addl. Small Causes Judge & MACT (SCCH-5), Bengaluru) had dismissed claim in MVC No.2212/2013 (judgment dt. 06.02.2015) holding the offending tempo (KA-05-AD-2363) was not involved, was falsely implicated, and its driver lacked a valid and effective driving licence - Held: the spot sketch showed both vehicles moving in the same direction; the IMV inspection report disclosed no dent on either vehicle, and any contact between the two-wheeler and the four-wheeler would have caused damage; the abrasions and fractures in the wound certificate (Ex.P.3) may have occurred due to a self fall; PW-1's cross-examination (20.02.2014) and his own evidence (13.08.2014) contradicted each other - the Tribunal properly appreciated the evidence and there were no merits to interfere - Appeal dismissed; Tribunal's judgment affirmed; TCR to be sent back. (CAV judgment, single Judge.)

1 -

MFA No. 4714 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4714 OF 2015 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

NATARAJ G S/O LATE K.GOPAL, AGED 50 YEARS, NO.36, 3RD CROSS, MARAPPA LAYOUT, RAJRAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU-560098.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

NAGENDRA REDDY A S/O A.O.REDDY, AGED 35 YEARS, NO.46/4, CHIKATHAGUNI, KENGERI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560062.

PRASAD H G S/O GAVISIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, NO.120, JANITHA READY MIX, CONCRETE THATAGUNI VILLAGE, OPP. BWSSB, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560062.

2 -

MFA No. 4714 of 2015

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.89, II FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA, BENGALURU-560068.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) V/O DATED 27.06.2022 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS H/S)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH-5) AT BENGALURU DATED 06.02.2015 IN MVC NO.2212/2013 AND TO AWARD COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the claimant/appellant seeking for enhancement of compensation arising out of judgment dated 06.02.2015 in MVC No.2212/2013 passed by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident

3 -

MFA No. 4714 of 2015

Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’, for short).

The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal for easy reference.

The brief facts of the case are that:-

On 26.12.2012 at about 9:30 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding to his residence at Rajarajeshwari Nagar in his Two Wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA-41-L-2159, at that time, a Tata LGV 2019 Goods Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AD-2363 came in a rash and negligent manner from back and hit the petitioner’s vehicle, due to which, petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

Upon service of notice, the respondents had filed their respective written statements. The respondent No.3 has denied the occurrence of accident and contends that the driver of the vehicle had no valid and effective

4 -

MFA No. 4714 of 2015

driving licence at the time of accident. The respondent No.1, who is owner of the vehicle had contended that the offending vehicle has not at all involved in the incident and the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated and submits that the petitioner himself is liable for the injuries since his vehicle got struck with the offending vehicle and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence. The petitioner was examined as PW-1 and doctor was examined as PW-2 and marked documents at Exs.P1 to P-16. On behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got marked documents at Exs.R1 to R3.

After hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the offending vehicle was not involved in the incident and has been falsely implicated and the

5 -

MFA No. 4714 of 2015

driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that due to the accident, appellant has sustained commuted fracture base of 2^nd metatarsal with displacement left foot, fracture of distal phylanx of great toe left foot and abrasions over left calf, foot and great toe, injuries sustained in the accident has affected the professional career of the appellant. He further contends that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence as well as documents produced by the appellant. Hence, prays to set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and to award compensation.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that offending vehicle has not been involved in the accident and the same has been falsely implicated in the accident. He further contends that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and has violated the

6 -

MFA No. 4714 of 2015

terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As per the police records, the incident being happened as pleaded, finds corroboration. It is contended that, PW-1 in his cross-examination on 20.02.2014 deposed that his vehicle’s rear portion is damaged and in further crossexamination on 12.08.2014, he admits that both the vehicles have not come in contact with each other. The IMV inspection report discloses that there is no damage to both the vehicles. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.

Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.

Though the appellant has pleaded that there is involvement of vehicle, on going through the spot sketch, it discloses that two-wheeler was proceeding on the right side of the tempo and the tempo has overtaken from left side. In the meantime, the two-wheeler was struck by tempo as per records. However, the spot sketch discloses that when both the vehicles were moving in same direction, the alleged incident has happened and the two-

7 -

MFA No. 4714 of 2015

wheeler was struck by tempo from rear side as per the police records and evidence of PW-1. As per IMV inspection report, it discloses that there is no dent on either of the vehicles and if there is any contact between the two-wheeler and four-wheeler, there should be some damages to the vehicles. If the petitioner’s two-wheeler was struck with the tempo, the petitioner would have sustained grave injuries. As per wound certificate at Ex.P.3, the petitioner has sustained abrasion and fractures which may have occurred due to self fall. Hence, the accident being happened as admitted by PW-1 in his cross-examination dated 20.02.2014 or as per his own evidence dated 13.08.2014, contradicts with each other.

On hearing the submissions of learned counsel

for both the parties and on perusing the record, this Court has observed that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and material on record and dismissed the claim petition of the petitioner and there are no merits to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.

8 -

MFA No. 4714 of 2015

Hence, the appeal lacks merits and the same has to be dismissed.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

i) Miscellaneous First Appeal is

dismissed.

ii) The Judgment dated 06.02.2015 in MVC No.2212/2013 on the file of the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (SCCH-5), Bengaluru, is hereby affirmed.

iii) Registry is directed to send back the TCR to the Tribunal, forthwith.

Sd/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

MH/-