Smt Umadevi Vs Smt. Deepa Shri — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt Umadevi Vs Smt. Deepa Shri — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and award set aside; matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration; parties at liberty to produce additional documents and lead further evidence; parties to appear before the Tribunal on 03.08.2026 without further notice; Tribunal to endeavour early disposal of the 2018 matter with co-operation of parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition primarily on the ground that the owner of the motorcycle (R.W.1) deposed that her vehicle was not involved in the accident, despite her cross-examination admission of executing a GPA in favour of the rider and investigation papers attributing the accident to his rash and negligent riding. +1 more

Court's answer

The owner R.W.1 deposed that her motorcycle was not involved in the accident, yet admitted in cross-examination that she executed a GPA in favour of the rider after the accident for release of the motorcycle from the Police Station; in such circumstances a doubt arises in the mind of this Court about her testimony.

Ratio / Principle

While the MLC register (Ex.R1) recorded 'skid and fall from bike - opposite two wheeler hit', the complaint lodged by the claimant the same day and the subsequent investigation papers including the chargesheet clearly reveal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle.

Key takeaways

Considering the overall evidence on record, and since the claimant failed to examine the author of Ex.R1 owing to unavoidable circumstances, this is a fit case to be reconsidered by the Tribunal; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and award is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration with liberty to produce additional documents and lead further evidence.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act S.173(1) - Injury claim by pillion rider - Karnataka HC (single bench, Rajesh Rai K, J.), decided at admission stage on 08.07.2026, allowed MFA No.4313/2020 (MV-I) against dismissal of MVC No.4657/2018 (award dt.15.10.2019) by MACT-XVI, Bengaluru SCCH-14. Tribunal had rejected the petition primarily on the deposition of R.W.1/owner denying her motorcycle's involvement; the HC noted that in cross-examination she admitted executing a post-accident GPA in favour of the rider (claimant's husband) for release of the vehicle, raising a doubt about her testimony. Though MLC register Ex.R1 recorded 'skid and fall from bike, opposite two wheeler hit', the same-day complaint/FIR (Crime No.58/2018, Rajajinagar PS) and the chargesheet attributed the accident to the rider's rash and negligent driving; accident date/place and policy coverage were not in dispute. As the claimant could not examine the author of Ex.R1, the HC set aside the award and remanded for fresh consideration, permitting additional documents and further evidence; parties directed to appear on 03.08.2026 and Tribunal to expedite. No compensation quantified at this stage; no precedent cited.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:34752 MFA No. 4313 of 2020

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4313 OF 2020(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SMT UMADEVI W/O A.V VENKATESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, 10^TH C MAIN, 6^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. ANANDA V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. DEEPA SHRI W/O GANGADARAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.31, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, VINAYAKA NAGAR, VRUSBHAVATHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079.

M/S MAGMA HDI NO.36, 2^ND FLOOR, HMJC J.C ROAD, NEAR MINERVA CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 07.07.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34752 MFA No. 4313 of 2020

HC-KAR

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 4657/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-14, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.4657/2018 dated 15.10.2019 by the Tribunal, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant was dismissed.

The brief facts of the case are that, on 23.07.2018 at about 9.00 a.m., when the claimant riding pillion with her husband in Scooty TVS Wego bearing registration No.KA02 JE 5578 from Rajajinagar to Nagarabhavi and when they reached near Shakti Garden, Kalyan Nagar Main Road, Bengaluru, the rider of the motorcycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules and regulations and applied sudden brake all of a sudden, due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter,

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34752 MFA No. 4313 of 2020

HC-KAR

she was shifted to Dhanush Hospital, where she took treatment as inpatient. Later she lodged a complaint before the Rajajinagar Police Station and FIR came to be registered in Crime No.58/2018 against her husband i.e., the rider of the motorcycle. After investigation, chargesheet was laid against the rider of the motorcycle. Accordingly, the claim petition was filed by the claimant before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident.

Before the Tribunal, she examined herself as P.W.1 and examined one more witness i.e., the Doctor, who treated her, as P.W.2 and marked 19 documents as Exs.P1 to P19. The respondents in support of their case examined three witnesses as R.W.1 to R.W.3 and marked 5 documents as Exs.R.1 to R5.

On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition. Aggrieved by which, the claimant is before this Court in this appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:34752 MFA No. 4313 of 2020

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the appellant, apart from urging several contentions, primarily would contend that the Tribunal has grossly erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the owner of the motorcycle involved in the accident i.e., R.W.1 deposed before the Tribunal that the said motorcycle was not involved in the accident. However, in her crossexamination, she has categorically admitted that after the accident, she issued General Power of Attorney in favour of rider of the motorcycle i.e., the husband of the claimant to release the vehicle from the Police Station. The said admission of R.W.1 describes her testimony. He further contended that immediately after the accident, the claimant lodged a complaint before the Police that she sustained grievous injuries due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by her husband. Thereafter, investigation papers also revealed that the accident in question had caused due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the husband of the claimant. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting the claim petition. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal by awarding just compensation.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34752 MFA No. 4313 of 2020

HC-KAR

Per contra , learned counsel for the insurer would contend there is contradiction in the evidence of R.W.1, the owner of the motorcycle and that when the owner herself clearly deposed before the Court that her vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim petition.

He would further contend by placing reliance on Ex.R1 - the MLC extract that there is some insertion in the said register in respect of alleged accident and the same depicts that the accident had caused due to " skid and fall from bike, opposite two wheeler hit". In such circumstances, he submits that a frivolous petition has been filed by the claimant in order to make unlawful gain. As such, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment by rejecting the claim petition, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34752 MFA No. 4313 of 2020

HC-KAR

It is not in dispute that the accident had occurred on 23.07.2018 at 9.00 a.m. at Kalyan Nagar near Shakthi Garden. The coverage of insurance policy in respect of motorcycle is also not in dispute.

As could be gathered from records, immediately after the accident the claimant was shifted to Dhanush Hospital at 9.45 a.m., where she took treatment as an inpatient. In the MLC register - Ex.R1, it is stated that the accident had occurred due to " skid and fall from bike - opposite two wheeler hit". However, in the complaint that was lodged by the claimant on the same day, it was stated that the accident had occurred due to sudden apply of brake by the rider of the motorcycle and accordingly, FIR came to be registered. Subsequently, investigation papers including chargesheet clearly reveal that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal while rejecting the claim petition primarily relied on the evidence of R.W.1 - owner of the vehicle, who deposed that her motorcycle was not involved in the accident, however, during her crossexamination, she admitted that she executed GPA in favour of the rider of the motorcycle after the accident for release of the

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:34752 MFA No. 4313 of 2020

HC-KAR

motorcycle from the Police Station. In such circumstances, a doubt arises in the mind of this Court about the testimony of R.W.1.

However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

due to some unavoidable circumstances, the claimant had failed to examine the author of Ex.R1 - MLC register. He submits that if an opportunity is extended the claimant would examine the author of Ex.R1 and then, there is every possibility of eliciting the truth from the author of Ex.R1 in respect of the accident.

In view of the above, I find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant. By considering the overall evidence on record, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case to be reconsidered at the hands of the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed.

ii) The impugned judgment and award is set aside.

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:34752 MFA No. 4313 of 2020

HC-KAR

iii) The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

iv) The parties are at liberty to produce additional documents and lead further evidence.

v) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 03.08.2026 without expecting any further notice from the Tribunal.

vi) Since the matter is of the year 2018, the Tribunal shall make endeavour to dispose of the same at the earliest.

vii) The parties shall co-operate with the Tribunal for speedy disposal.

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

PKS

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37