The genuineness of the claim and the delay in lodging the complaint are crucial factors in determining the validity of a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

1. These appeals are filed under Sec. -173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for brevity) challenging the judgment and award dtd. 23/10/2017, passed in M.V.C.No.118/2017, on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge MACT, at Srirangapatna, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity). MFA No.1178/2018 is filed by the appellantinsurance company, questioning the liability fixed by the Tribunal to pay the compensation. MFA No.6815/2018 is filed by the appellantclaimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Brief facts:

2. That on 26/11/2016 at about 2.00 a.m., near Basavanahally Village, T.N.Pura Taluk, Mysore District, when the claimant was proceeding in a motor bike bearing registration No.KA-11-EC-8094 as a pillion rider, ridden by its rider by name Mahadeva, at that time, the rider of the said bike rode the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and lost control over the bike and thereby the accident occurred. As a result of which, the claimant fell down from the motor bike and sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Thereafter, he was admitted to Cauvery Hospital, Mysuru and was treated for the said injuries suffered.

3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimant under Sec. -166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,49,230.00 along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal held respondent Nos.1 and 2, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant - claimant submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded under various heads is on lesser side. Therefore, seeks for enhancement of the compensation.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - insurance company in the connected appeal submitted that the present case is filed fraudulently, just to make claim against the insurance company. That there is a delay of 47 days in lodging the complaint. It is stated that the accident has occurred on 26/11/2016 and a complaint was lodged on 11/1/2017, but there is no proper explanation for delay in lodging the complaint. Even if the claimant was unconscious in the hospital and could not come to the Police Station for lodging complaint, but the fact remains that the son of the claimant was riding the motor cycle and he had also sustained some injuries. But there is no iota of evidence regarding what happened to the rider of the motor cycle and whether the claimant's son made any effort to get lodged the complaint before the Police. Therefore, submitted upon bare perusal of the complaint, it is proved fact that the complaint lodged before the Police is for making a claim against the insurance company by falsely implicating the motor cycle. Therefore, considering the entirety of the case at its preponderance of probabilities, it is submitted that a false complaint is lodged before the Police to make claim against the insurer of the motor cycle. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal of the insurance company by setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that just because there is a delay in lodging the complaint that cannot be made a ground to reject the claim petition. Further, submitted that there may be various reasons for the delay in lodging complaint belatedly. That could be considered and appreciated in the context of the facts and circumstances involved in each case. Therefore, submitted that the claimant had sustained severe head injuries and he was unconscious in the hospital for 33 days and thereafter was discharged from the h