Dismissed¶51

Smt K R Geetha v. H C Nagabhushan

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – S.173(1)

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2026MFA/1780/2014

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MFA No. 1780 of 2014 (MV-), High Court of Karnataka, decided 14.07.2026 by P Sree Sudha J; appeal under S.173(1) MV Act against dismissal of MVC No.103/2011 (Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & MACT-XII, Madhugiri); pillion rider injured 19.06.2011, motorcycle KA-06-S-3675; claimant wife of owner, son was rider; delay of 4 days in complaint; Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530 relied on for preponderance of probability standard; claimant failed to prove negligence even on preponderance; appeal dismissed, no compensation or enhancement granted.

What did the court decide?

Strict proof as in criminal cases is not required of the claimant, but she had at least to prove the case by preponderance of probabilities, and she failed to do so. ¶50

Smt K R Geetha Vs H C Nagabhushan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:35859 MFA No. 1780 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1780 OF 2014 (MV-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT K R GEETHA W/O H C NAGABHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O RAGHAVENDRA EXTENSION MADHUGIRI TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 132.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PATEL D KAREGOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

H C NAGABHUSHAN S/O CHIKKAHONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O RAGHAVENDRA EXTENSION MADHUGIRI TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 132.

¶16

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO,.4/3-1 AND 3/2, 11^TH MAIN 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BANGALORE-560 061 BY ITS MANAGER

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H C BETSUR., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 12.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35859 MFA No. 1780 of 2014

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NO.103/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC & MACT-XII, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 02.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

CAV JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and award dated 12.9.2013 passed in MVC No.103/2011 on the file of the Prl.Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & MACT-XII, Madhugiri and for enhancing the compensation.

¶25

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶26

The injured claimant met with an accident on 19.06.2011 and filed claim petition claiming compensation

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35859 MFA No. 1780 of 2014

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

of Rs.10 lakhs. The tribunal considering entire evidence

¶30

on record dismissed the application.

¶31

Aggrieved by the said order they preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the accident took place on 19.06.2011. Appellant was pillion rider in the motor cycle and the son of the appellant was riding the vehicle and vehicle belonged to respondent No.1, who is husband of the appellant. Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition holding that it is not maintainable. The Tribunal also observed that the delay in filing the complaint creates doubt. The doctor who treated the petitioner with history of road traffic accident, did not inform to the police, though it was treated as MLC. It is submitted that for the mistake committed by the doctor, the appellant cannot be penalized. It is further stated that tribunal observed that the accident occurred in Madhugiri, but she took treatment in Tumkur, but she was shifted to Tumkur for better treatment. In the wound certificate, no details like registration number of the vehicle and spot of the accident

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35859 MFA No. 1780 of 2014

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

is mentioned and also stated that eye witnesses in the charge sheet are not examined. The tribunal with the above observations dismissed the application and the said order is illegal, unjust and arbitrary. Therefore, requested the court to set aside the said order.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon citation reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 in case of Bimla Devi and Ors Vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors in which it was held as follows,

¶36

“ Strict proof of the accident may not be possible to be given by the claimants. Claimants have to establish their case on preponderance of probability. Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt not applicable.”

¶37

On perusal of the record it shows that on 19.06.2011, at about 07.30 a.m., the petitioner was travelling towards Honnapura village as a pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-06-S-3675 along with the rider and when they reached near Sira gate on

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35859 MFA No. 1780 of 2014

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Madhugiri-Sira road, Madhugiri town, at that time the rider of the motorcycle suddenly applied the brake on seeing the pig on the centre of the road. As a result, the petitioner also fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Adithya Hospital, Tumkur. She was doing business and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It is observed by the tribunal that the petitioner is wife of respondent No.1, who is the owner of the offending vehicle. Her son was riding the motorcycle along with her, as a pillion rider. The complaint was filed on 26.06.2011 and the reason for delay is not explained properly. Though she met with an accident in Madhugiri and there was Government Hospital, she was shifted to Tumkur which is at distance of 45 kilometers without taking treatment in the local hospital. The reason stated by the complainant is that he was engaged in getting treatment to the wife. As such, he could not give the complaint immediately after the accident, there is delay of 4 days in giving the complaint. Ex.P4 is the vehicle Seizure Mahazar and the

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35859 MFA No. 1780 of 2014

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

vehicle was seized 4 days after the complaint i.e., on 30.06.2011. Ex.P5/MVA report discloses that vehicle was inspected on 01.07.2011 at 05.00 p.m. As per Ex.P6/wound certificate, history is mentioned as road traffic accident, but no details like registered number of the vehicle and spot of the accident was mentioned. Even in Ex.P8/discharge summary, brief history of the appeal is mentioned. It is further stated that as per Ex.P7/ charge sheet, there are two eyewitnesses – Ramakrishna and HC Parameswarappa, but they were not examined by the petitioner, to prove the accident and involvement of the petitioner. The petitioner herself admitted that rider of the vehicle was her son.

¶44

The tribunal observed that father was the owner

¶45

of the vehicle and son was riding the motorcycle and the claimant is Wife of the owner of the vehicle and all of them are closely related. Considering all these aspects, tribunal dismissed the application. It is for the petitioners to prove

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:35859 MFA No. 1780 of 2014

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the manner of accident, involvement of the vehicle, rash and negligence of the rider of the motorcycle.

¶50

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that strict proof is not required as in criminal cases. But it is for them, at least to prove the case by pre-ponderance of probabilities, but they failed to do so. Therefore, this court finds that tribunal rightly dismissed application.

¶51

Considering all these aspects, this court finds that the appeal is devoid of merits and hence dismissed .

¶52

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶53

AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Smt K R Geetha v. H C Nagabhushan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt K R Geetha v. H C Nagabhushan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Controller Vs Pushpalatha

Gagan. R Vs Gunashree. R

Sathyanarayana Manohar Vs Suman S

Manjushetti @ Manju Vs the Manager

Mr Ashraf Vs Mr H v Purushotham

Marigowda Vs S Srinivas