Dismissed

Sri (Dr) Neelakanta v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2025MFA/9576/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Doctor's motor accident claim was dismissed by the Tribunal for failure to prove vehicle involvement; inconsistencies in medical records and altered accident history raised doubts. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence, upheld the finding that criminal proceedings were not conclusive proof of the accident, and dismissed the claimant's appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri (Dr) Neelakanta Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23621 MFA No. 9576 of 2013

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9576 OF 2013 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI (DR) NEELAKANTA S/O LATE SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.64, 3^RD MAIN 10^TH CROOSS, BEL LAYUT I^ST BLOCK, VIDYARANYAPURAM BANGALORE-560 097.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. KRISHNA B.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PRASHANTH CHANDRA S.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.144, 2^ND FLOOR SUBHARAM COMPLEX M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

MRS. VIJAYAKUMARI W/O VANITHKUMAR, MAJOR, R/A NO.12/3, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, VI BLOCK, PADARAYANAPURA BANGALORE - 560 026.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. MANJULA N. TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23621 MFA No. 9576 of 2013

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3703/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & XXII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 24.07.2013 passed by the MACT, XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru in MVC.No.3703/2012. (for short 'the Tribunal').

¶24

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that, on 29.03.2010, at around 1:15 p.m., the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-04-EJ-5061 from Gangamma Gudi to K.G. Halli. During the course of this journey, he met with an accident allegedly caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Maruthi Omni car bearing

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23621 MFA No. 9576 of 2013

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

registration No. KA-02-MB-4502, as a result of impact, he sustained grievous injuries. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was 58 years old, a doctor by profession, and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs.

¶29

Respondent No.1 is the insurer and Respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1, in its written statement, denied the averments made in the petition. It contended that the petitioner had earlier filed MVC No.5914/2010 before the Court of SCCH-15, and that the petition was dismissed for default. He did not get it restored and filed this petition and it is not maintainable in law. It is further stated that the claimant has not sustained injuries due to the involvement of the vehicle bearing No. KA-02-MB-4502. Its liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly,

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23621 MFA No. 9576 of 2013

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶33

Respondent No.2 was ex-parte before the

¶34

Tribunal.

¶35

Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues.

¶36

The claimant to prove his case, examined two witnesses as PWs 1 and 2 and marked documents as Exhibits P1 to P20. Respondent No.1 examined one witness as RW1 and marked documents as Exs-R1 to R4.

¶37

The Tribunal after hearing both parties by the impugned judgment dismissed the claim petition, holding that the petitioner had not sustained injuries in an accident involving the alleged offending vehicle. The same is challenged in the present appeal.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner vehemently contended that an FIR was registered the next

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23621 MFA No. 9576 of 2013

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

day on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner’s wife. He was admitted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital. Ex-P6 states that the petitioner sustained injuries in a road traffic accident, and Ex.P7—the discharge summary, reveals about the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, however, ignored Exhibits P6 and P7 and relied solely on Ex-P8 to conclude that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. It was further contended that on the complaint of his wife a criminal case was registered and after completion of investigation chargesheet was laid against the driver of the Omni car, subsequently pleaded guilty and paid a fine. These facts are sufficient to hold that accident took place by involvement of the said vehicle.

¶42

The petitioner further contends that the claimant has suffered fractures, as recorded in Exs-P6 to P8, and has produced relevant medical records to corroborate the said evidence. However, since the Tribunal answered Issue No.1 in the negative, it did not assess compensation.

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23621 MFA No. 9576 of 2013

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Therefore, it was prayed that this Court should evaluate the materials on record, assess the compensation, and allow the appeal.

¶46

On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 contended that the claim petition is not maintainable, as the claimant had earlier filed MVC No. 5914/2010, which was dismissed for default on 13.03.2012. The claimant failed to take steps to restore the earlier case and instead filed the present appeal, hence it is not maintainable.

¶47

The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 further contends that contents of Ex-P8 is contrary to pleadings of the claimant. It indicates that accident did not occur due to the involvement of the offending vehicle. Ex.P8 was tampered and history of injury was altered. Even injuries mentioned in Exs.P6, P7 and P8 are not by the alleged accident. The claimant was suffering from Hernia and on the date of alleged incident, he consulted another doctor and underwent ultrasound test. The said document

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23621 MFA No. 9576 of 2013

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

indicates that he was not at the spot of the accident at the time of alleged accident. The spot of accident shown in Ex.P2, P6 and P7 are different. In one document, it is mentioned as K.G.Halli in another document it is stated as Jalahalli cross and in the complaint it is stated as opposite to H.M.T. Hospital. Therefore, spot of accident is also not consistent.

¶51

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 further contended that as per Ex.P2 immediately after the accident, claimant was taken to H.M.T.Hospital and he was treated in the said hospital. No records of the said hospital were produced. Claimant to suppress truth has not produced the same. The law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. B.C.Kumar and others decided on 30.06.2009,¹ is aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. She further contended that mere filing of the charge sheet or pleading guilty by the accused are

¶52

1 ILR 2009 KAR 2921

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23621 MFA No. 9576 of 2013

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

not sufficient to believe that facts stated therein are true.

¶56

With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶57

In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that PWs.1 and 2 have narrated the facts of the case. The complainant is none other than the wife of the claimant. Respondent No.1 does not rely on Exs-P6 and P7 and instead takes shelter under Ex-P8. If Exs-P6 and P7 are considered, then case of claimant is believable. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for the appeal to be allowed.

¶58

The following questions arise for determination:

¶59

i. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claimant failed to prove the involvement of the offending car in the accident and that he sustained injuries in the said accident?

¶60

ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation?

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:23621 MFA No. 9576 of 2013

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Point No.1: PW-1 is the claimant. In his evidence,

¶64

he has reiterated the contents of the claim petition. During cross-examination, he denied the insurer’s suggestions. However, he admitted that in Ex-P8, the accident history initially stated that he "self fell from bike," and he also accepted that there was overwriting and it does not bear signature of the doctor. He was not re-examined to explain above facts i.e. giving of different history of accident in Ex.P8 before the concerned doctor. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the insurer. Claimant is a doctor and not a rustic villager. Exs-P6, P7, and P8 show that he was conscious and oriented. In such circumstances, the reason for giving a different version of the incident is not explained.

¶65

Ex-P6, on which the appellant’s counsel relies, does not provide detailed history of the incident. It merely states that the accident occurred on 29.03.2010 at about 1:40 p.m. at Jalahalli Cross. Ex-P7 was issued by the same doctor on the same date, the injury history reads:

¶66

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:23621 MFA No. 9576 of 2013

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

“Patient was brought to MSRMH with alleged history of RTA at 1:30 p.m. on 29.03.2010 near K.G. Halli while he was driving a two-wheeler and was hit by a four-wheeler.” Generally, discharge summaries will be written based on entries in the in-patient register. The claimant produced the in-patient register from M.S. Ramaiah Hospital as ExP17. However, relevant pages are missing from Ex-P17, such as the time of admission, who brought the claimant to the hospital, and at what time. In the absence of these details, it is unclear how the hospital authority recorded the injury history in Ex-P7.

¶69

In patient medical records were produced by the claimant and not by the concerned hospital that appears to be suspicious.

¶70

Ex-P2 states that the claimant was taken to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, situated in front of the spot of the incident. He also claims to have initially received treatment at HMT Hospital. It appears he did not inform to

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:23621 MFA No. 9576 of 2013

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

the said hospital that he sustained injury in an accident and hence no intimation was sent to the nearest police station for registering a medico-legal case (MLC). There is no record to show that the claimant received treatment at HMT Hospital.

¶75

On re-appreciating materials on records, it creates serious doubt about occurrence of accident. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly disbelieved the case of claimant. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 mere filing of charge sheet against the offending vehicle and driver of the offending vehicle pleading guilty are not conclusive proof of accident. By such facts it may be presumed that injuries sustained by the claimant was due to vehicle accident. Therefore, time and again, it is held by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court that whatever the findings of the Criminal Court are not binding on the Tribunal. Respondent - insurer brought to the knowledge of the Tribunal that all is not well in this case and able to

¶76

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:23621 MFA No. 9576 of 2013

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

substantiate the same. Hence, the normal presumption of submission of charge sheet and pleading guilty was rebutted and it was showed that it was a collusive acts of claimant, owner and driver of the vehicle. Hence, disbelieved the case made out by the claimant.

¶79

The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 relied on a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bajaj Allianz (referred supra), where in similar circumstances, it was held that if it appears that the vehicle is falsely implicated, the claimant is not entitled to compensation. The legal position stated therein supports the case of Respondent No.1.

¶80

Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I find no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s findings. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative. The claimant has failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and hence, he is not

¶81

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:23621 MFA No. 9576 of 2013

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

entitled to compensation from the respondents. Hence,

¶84

Point No.2 is answered in the negative.

¶85

The dismissal of the previous claim petition (MVC No.5914/2010) for default is not a ground for rejecting the present appeal, as it was not decided on merits. However, the claimant is not entitled to interest from the date of dismissal of the previous petition. The principle of res judicata does not apply in this case. Hence, said contention is not tenable.

¶86

For the above said reasons, I pass the

¶87

following:

¶88

ORDER

¶89

i. The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶90

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 24.07.2013 passed by MACT, XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru, in MVC.No.3703/2012 is confirmed.

¶91

14 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:23621 MFA No. 9576 of 2013

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

Send back the trial Court records along with the

¶95

copy of this judgment.

¶96

Sd/-

¶97

(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶98

AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri (Dr) Neelakanta v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri (Dr) Neelakanta v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs Moseena G

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Soorya Kumar

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Shusheela

Smt. M.K. Nanjammanni Vs M/S Pmi Process Systems

Sri S Mahesh Vs Sri Ayub Khan

Sri Venkatesh Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.