IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1429 OF 2015 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHANTHAMMA V W/O MALLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O SAI NAGAR, NERALURU VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 560 105.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE MANAGER IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., Digitally signed REGD OFFICE IFFCO SADAN, by PADMASHRE E C1. DISTT. CENTER SAKET, SHEKHAR DESAI NEW DELHI - 110 017.

Location: High Court of Karnataka BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.41, 2^ND FLOOR, NEXT TO MONDOVI MOTORS CRISTO COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 01.

2. S. SURESH R/O NO.34, 8TH MAIN, VIRATANAGAR, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 068.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

VIDE ORDER DATED 14.02.2020, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 1.7.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.4487/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 16TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 30.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 01.07.2014 passed in MVC No.4487/2011 on the file of the XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bangalore.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 26.04.2011 and had filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Trial Court considering the entire evidence on record dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider Exs.P.1 to P.5 documents filed by the appellant and also Exs.P.6 to P.14 regarding injuries sustained by her and dismissed the claim petition mainly on the ground that there is a delay of 82 days in lodging the complaint. It is further contended that the driver of the vehicle pleaded guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal.

5. The manner of the accident, as per the petition is that on 26.04.2011, the petitioner was going to her home and when she came near Neraluru gate, on NH-7 service road, the bike bearing No.KA-51-Y-8478 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner/injured claimant. As a result, she sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Sparsh Hospital, Bangalore, where she underwent surgery and was discharged on 09.05.2011. The petitioner/injured once again admitted in the same hospital on 10.05.2011 and took treatment for 48 days and discharged. She has spent Rs.1,60,000/- for medical expenses. She was running provisions store and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she became handicapped and could not perform her duties. Crime No.184/2011 was registered against the rider of the bike for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of IPC r/w Section 187 of MV Act.

6. Respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the motorcycle. As such, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent No.1 contended that no insurance policy was issued in respect of the said motorcycle for the period from 11.04.2011 to 10.04.2012 and the said motorcycle was not involved in the accident. Respondent No.2 did not inform the insurer regarding the involvement of the vehicle and there was no negligence on t