1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

M.F.A.NO.2484/2015 (MV)

BETWEEN:

AMBIKA @ AMBAKKA @ AMBAVVA

W/O SANGANNA

AGED 52 YEARS

R/O RAVOOR VILLAGE

CHITTAPURA TALUK

KULBARGI DISTRICT(GULBARGA). & APPELLANT

(BY SRI PUTTASWAMY C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 .

MURALI H.N.,

S/O NARASIMHAIAH

NO. E-52, CHANNASANDRA

COLONY LEFT SIDE,

CHANNASANDRA

BENGALURU-560061

2 .

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

REGIONAL OFFICE

NO. 18, KRUSHI BHAVAN

5^TH AND 6^TH FLOOR

OPP. TO HUDSON CHURCH

HUDSON CIRCLE, N.T. ROAD

BENGALURU-560001

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. & RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI JANARDHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

R1 SERVED)

2

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.12.2014

PASSED IN MVC.NO.1714/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 20^TH

ADDITIONAL

SMALL

CAUSES

JUDGE,

MEMBER,

MACT,

BENGALURU,

DISMISSING

THE

CLAIM

PETITION

FOR

COMPENSATION.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent

of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up

for final disposal.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

passed in M.V.C. No.1714/2013 dated 09.12.2014 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XX Additional Small Causes

Judge, Bangalore, SCCH-22 questioning the dismissal of the

claim petition.

2.

The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant on

03.01.2013 when she was crossing the road, the rider of Honda

Dio scooter bearing No.KA-05-HQ-4039 came in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against her. As a result, she fell

down and sustained injuries.

3

3.

In pursuance of the claim petition, notice has been

issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2. The respondent No.1-owner

of the vehicle appeared and filed written statement and denied

the averments made in the claim petition. Further, without

prejudice to the contentions raised in the written statement in

paragraph No.9 contended that since respondent No.1 insured

with the respondent No.2, as on the date of the alleged accident,

the insurance policy was in force and also the rider of the vehicle

was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the

vehicle. Hence, the insurance company is liable to pay

compensation.

4.

The respondent No.2-insurance company in the

written statement took the specific defence that, in order to

make wrongful gain, the claimant, colluding with the police filed

the false charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle. It is

also contended that the first respondent is not informed about

the occurrence of the alleged accident and not submitted claim

form and other documents. The Police have also not complied

the mandate under Section 158(6) of the M.V. Act. It is further

4

contended that without prejudice to the contentions above, it is

submitted that the alleged incident has taken place due to the

own fault and negligence of the claimant herself and she has

attempted to cross the road without observing the moving

vehicles. It is also contended that there is a delay in lodging the

complaint for a period of 17 days and the same creates doubt

with regard to the involvement of the vehicle in the accident.

5.

The claimant, in order to substantiate her claim,

examined herself as P.W.1 and examined the Doctor as P.W.2

and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other

hand, the respondent No.2-Insurance Company examined one

CMO of the hospital as R.W.1 and its Administrative Officer as

R.W.2 and got marked the documents Exs.R1 to R3.

6.

The counsel appearing for the claimant would

vehemently contend that in the document at Ex.P11-case sheet,

it is specifically mentioned that the claimant is hit by

motorcyclist and also would submit that in the complaint, it is