Smt Rukmini Vs T Purushottama — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt Rukmini Vs T Purushottama — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

I.A.No.1/2018 (additional evidence) allowed; appeal remanded to the Tribunal, which is directed to examine the Investigating Officer and dispose of the MVC claim on merits with opportunity to both sides within three months of receipt of records; Registry directed to transmit records within ten days.

Issue for consideration

Whether I.A.No.1/2018 (application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for production of additional evidence, to enable examination of the Investigating Officer notwithstanding the delayed FIR) should be allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and reasonable opportunity is to be granted to the litigant; this premise supports granting the applicant the opportunity to lead additional evidence.

Ratio / Principle

As it is a case of death, and the complaint/FIR was delayed because the registered owner of the vehicle had promised compensation (having paid Rs.5,000/-), this Court finds it just and reasonable to allow I.A.No.1/2018; objections to the application were not filed till date.

Key takeaways

Accordingly I.A.No.1/2018 is allowed and the appeal is remanded to the Tribunal with a specific direction to examine the Investigating Officer and dispose of the matter on merits, duly giving opportunity to both parties and considering the entire evidence and arguments, within three months from receipt of records.ratio¶44
The Registry is directed to send the records to the concerned Tribunal within ten days from the date of the order.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (P Sree Sudha, J.), 06-08-2025, MFA No. 824 of 2015 (MV-D): Appeal under S.173(1) MV Act against the dismissal of a motor-accident death claim (MVC No. 1138/2012, Senior Civil Judge/JMFC/MACT, K.R. Pet) founded on delayed FIR. Allowing I.A.No.1/2018 (filed 05.02.2018 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC) for production of additional evidence, the court held that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation warranting reasonable opportunity to litigants; noting it was a death case and that the FIR delay arose from the registered owner's promise of compensation after paying Rs.5,000/-, the court allowed the application and remanded the appeal to the Tribunal with a specific direction to examine the Investigating Officer and dispose of the matter on merits, giving opportunity to both sides, within three months of receipt of records; Registry directed to send the records within ten days.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30612 MFA No. 824 of 2015

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 824 OF 2015

(MV-D)

BETWEEN:

SMT RUKMINI

W/O LATE SIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O OOGINAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K R PET TALUK

2. YATHISHA

Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

S/O LATE SIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, R/O OOGINAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K R PET TALUK

TEJASKUMAR

S/O LATE SIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, R/O OOGINAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K R PET TALUK

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI .,ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30612 MFA No. 824 of 2015

HC-KAR

AND:

T PURUSHOTTAMA S/O T THIMMARAYISHETTI, R/O SRINIVASA NILAYA DEVANGE STREET, HOLENRASIPURA TOWN, HOLENRASIPURA TALUK, HASANA DISTRICT.

THE MANAGER

ORIENTAL INSRANCE CO LTD, IST FLOOR, S S COMPLE,X SUBHASH CHOWKA, HASANA.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. O MAHESH ADVOCATE FOR R2., R-1 SERVED)

MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 5.9.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1138/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, K.R.PET, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Appellant's counsel present.

I.A.No.1/2018 is filed by learned counsel for the

appellant on 05.02.2018, under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC

for production of additional evidence, in which it is stated

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30612 MFA No. 824 of 2015

HC-KAR

that after the accident RC owner of the vehicle along with driver initially paid Rs.5,000/- and promised to pay compensation and requested not to file any complaint and later panchayath was also conducted, but the RC owner did not turn up, as such there was delay in filing the FIR.

The Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground of delayed FIR. As the petitioner is illiterate, she could not examine the Investigating Officer. Therefore, requests this Court to allow the application and to remand the matter for examining the Investigating Officer.

Till today objections are not filed. Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and reasonable opportunity is to be granted to the litigant. It is a case of death. In view of the promise of RC owner of the vehicle, they could not file the complaint in time and now she intends to examine the Investigating Officer. Therefore, this Court finds it just and reasonable to allow the application.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30612 MFA No. 824 of 2015

HC-KAR

Accordingly I.A.No.1/2018 is allowed and appeal is

remanded to the concerned Tribunal with a specific direction to examine the Investigating Officer and to dispose of the matter on merits, by duly giving opportunity to both the parties and also on considering the entire evidence and arguments of both the sides, within three months from the date of receipt of the records.

Registry is directed to send the records to the concerned Tribunal within ten days from the date of this order.

[7. Consequent to allowing I.A.No.1/2018, the appeal is

remanded to the concerned Tribunal.

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57