Remanded¶72

Lakshmamma v. Ramesha

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2026MFA/4955/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: motor vehicle accident claim; pillion rider death; Chandankumar; KA-44-W-2732; accident 31.05.2020; death 09.06.2020; FIR 10.06.2020; delay in lodging complaint; nexus between injuries and death; lobar pneumonia; FSL report awaited; Ex.P6 postmortem; Ex.P16/P17/P20/P21 overlooked; Section 166 MV Act; Section 173(1) MV Act appeal; MVC No.600/2020; III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC MACT Tumakuru; Chola-M.S. General Insurance Company; remand for fresh consideration; no compensation awarded. Bench: S.G. Pandit & K.V. Aravind, JJ.; decided 10-03-2026.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and award dated 25.02.2025 in MVC.No.600/2020 set aside; matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration; parties directed to appear before the Tribunal on 10.04.2026; all contentions left open. ¶72

Lakshmamma Vs Ramesha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶72

Issue for consideration

Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased sustained injuries in the alleged accident and due to injuries sustained he died, is justified?

¶50

Court's answer

The answer to the framed point is in the negative: the Tribunal's finding that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased sustained injuries in the alleged accident and died due to those injuries is not justified, and the matter needs re-consideration by the Tribunal.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

The entire Tribunal records do not include the FSL report, and the postmortem report placed on record as Ex.P6 indicates the FSL report is awaited; it is therefore not known how the Tribunal recorded its finding resting on the FSL report.

¶65

Key takeaways

The Tribunal did not look into Ex.P16, Ex.P17, Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 while coming to the conclusion that there is no nexus between the injuries sustained and the death of the victim.ratio¶65
The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to consider the entire material on record, providing an opportunity to the claimants as well as the insurance company to place additional documents on record.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M.F.A. No. 4955 of 2025 (MV-D) — High Court of Karnataka, Division Bench (S.G. Pandit & K.V. Aravind, JJ.), oral judgment per S.G. Pandit J., dated 10.03.2026 — Appeal under S.173(1) MV Act by claimants against dismissal of their Section 166 MV Act claim (MVC No.600/2020, III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, MACT, Tumakuru, judgment and award dated 25.02.2025) arising from the death of pillion rider Chandankumar (son of claimants 1 and 2) in the road traffic accident of 31.05.2020 involving motorbike KA-44-W-2732; the deceased died on 09.06.2020 and the FIR was lodged on 10.06.2020 by his uncle. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim on the grounds of 10 days' delay in filing the complaint and absence of nexus between the injuries and the death, recording at paragraph 16 that the deceased died of lobar pneumonia per hospital records, postmortem, FSL and histo-pathology reports. Held: the entire Tribunal records contain no FSL report and the Ex.P6 postmortem report shows the FSL report awaited, so the basis of the Tribunal's finding is unexplained; the Tribunal also overlooked Ex.P16, Ex.P17, Ex.P20 and Ex.P21; the finding that the claimants failed to prove the injury-cum-death nexus is unjustified. Judgment and award dated 25.02.2025 set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration with opportunity to both sides to place additional documents on record, all contentions left open; parties to appear before the Tribunal on 10.04.2026.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14575-DB MFA No. 4955 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶8

M.F.A. NO. 4955 OF 2025 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

LAKSHMAMMA W/O MALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶11

MALEGOWDA S/O LATE KEMPAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶12

H.M. PAPEGOWDA S/O. MALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT HONNUDIKE HALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶15

NOW R/AT SWANDENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT- 577101.

¶16

&APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. M.B. RYAKHA, ADV.)

¶18

AND:

¶19

RAMESHA S/O KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT AMBALADEVANAHALLI, DASIHALLI POST, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKURU-577101.

¶20

THE MANAGER CHOLA-M.S. GEN. INSURANCE

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14575-DB MFA No. 4955 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

COMPANY LIMITED, OFFICE AT UNIT NO.4. 9^TH FLOOR, GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX. 59^TH 'C' CROSS ROAD, 4^TH 'M' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU 3 560010.

¶24

&RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 R1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.02.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.600/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶31

The claimants are in appeal being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 25.02.2025 in MVC.No.600/2020 on the file of the III Additional Senior

¶32

Civil Judge and MACT at Tumakuru (for short, 8the Tribunal9) whereby the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is dismissed.

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14575-DB MFA No. 4955 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Heard learned counsel Sri. M.B.Ryakha for

¶36

claimants and learned counsel Sri.D.Vijayakumar for respondent No.2. Perused the entire appeal papers including in the Trial Court records.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit

¶38

that deceased Sri Chandankumar who was the son of claimants No.1 and 2 died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 31.05.2020 involving motorbike bearing registration No.KA-44-W-2732 while he was proceeding as pillion rider and died due to the injuries sustained when he fell down along with the motorbike while avoiding to hit a Buffalo. Learned counsel would submit that on the day of accident itself the deceased was taken for treatment to Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, Hospital and Research Center, Balagangadharanatha Nagara. Learned counsel refers to Ex.P21 3 Consultant Progress Notes i.e., the case sheet. He submits that the deceased died on 09.06.2020. Subsequent to his death, on 10.06.2020, uncle

¶39

of the deceased registered the complaint in terms of Ex.P2.

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14575-DB MFA No. 4955 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellants would

¶43

submit that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the complaint and on the ground that there is no nexus between the accidental injuries and the death of the deceased. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the documents placed on record and if the Tribunal looked into Ex.P21 along with Ex.P6 3 Postmortem report, the Tribunal would have come to a different conclusion. Learned counsel would submit that the finding recorded at paragraph 16 of the judgment is without basis. It is submitted that the FSL report was not made available before the Tribunal and he submits that postmortem report indicates that FSL report is awaited. In that circumstance, it is submitted that the finding recorded at paragraph 16 is extraneous and without considering the material on record. Thus, learned counsel would pray for remanding the matter for fresh consideration of the material placed on record.

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14575-DB MFA No. 4955 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.D.Vijayakumar

¶47

for second respondent 3 insurance company would support the order passed by the Tribunal and further submits that it is a false claim, as, the complaint in respect of an accident which had taken place on 31.05.2020 was filed only on 10.06.2020, that too after death of the deceased. Learned counsel would submit that nothing prevented the claimants from filing complaint immediately on the day of accident or the next day. Further, learned counsel would submit that the injury sustained by the deceased was not disclosed and whether the said injury has any nexus to the death of the deceased after 10 days is not properly explained and no medical evidence is also let-in, in that aspect. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶49

the parties and on perusal of the entire material on record, the only point which falls for our consideration is,

¶50

Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:14575-DB MFA No. 4955 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

sustained injuries in the alleged accident and due to injuries sustained, he died is justified?

¶55

Answer to the above point would be in the

¶56

negative and the matter needs re-consideration by the Tribunal, for the following reasons:

¶57

The claimants approached the Tribunal by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of the son of claimants No.1 and 2 in the road traffic accident that took place on 31.05.2020 involving motorbike bearing registration No.KA-44-W-2732 while the deceased was proceeding as pillion rider. According to the claimants, the accident had taken place on 31.05.2020 and Ex.P21 3 case sheet supports the said statement, as the case sheet records the admission of the deceased to the hospital, i.e., Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, Hospital and Research Center, Balagangadharanatha Nagara. Admittedly, the FIR is registered on 10.06.2020 by the uncle of the deceased i.e., after the death of the deceased

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:14575-DB MFA No. 4955 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

on 09.06.2020. The Tribunal at paragraph 16 has recorded

¶62

the following finding:

¶63

<16. &&&& on perusal of hospital records, postmortem findings, forensic science laboratory report and histo-pathology report, I am of the opinion that the deceased died of lobar pneumonia, a lung disease.=

¶64

We have gone through the entire Tribunal

¶65

records. The entire Tribunal records would not include FSL report. Even the Postmortem report, which is placed on record as Ex.P6 would indicate that FSL report is awaited. However, it is not known how the Tribunal has recorded such a finding. The Tribunal has also not looked into Ex.P16, Ex.P17, Ex.P20 and Ex.P21, while coming to the conclusion that there is no nexus to the injuries sustained and the death of the victim. The matter needs to be remanded to the Tribunal to consider the entire material on record and also to provide an opportunity to the claimants as well as to the insurance company to place on record additional documents. The matter needs to be

¶66

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:14575-DB MFA No. 4955 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

remanded to the Tribunal leaving open all the contentions

¶70

of the parties. Hence, the following:

¶71

ORDER

¶72