Discrepancies between an initial FIR and a subsequent charge sheet regarding vehicle details do not absolve an insurance company of liability unless independent evidence is produced to prove the vehicle was falsely implicated.

V/O/DTD:05.01.2026 NOTICE TO R1 IS DEEMED TO BE SATISFIED

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.812/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, ARKALGUD, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.66,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 01.07.2017 passed in MVC.No.812/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT, Arkalgud (for short 'the Tribunal').

2. Smt.Padma S. Uttur, learned counsel for Sri.Ashok N. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that respondent No.1 field a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a road accident dated 17.01.2016. However, the complaint was lodged only on 19.01.2016 as is evident from Ex.P2, stating that the accident is occurred due to the actionable negligence of the driver of a car bearing registration No.KA-01-ME-4297. Based on the said complaint, an FIR came to be registered as per Ex.P1. It is submitted that the claimant in collusion with the investigation officer filed a charge sheet against the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01-MC-4297. It is further submitted that while the complaint and FIR refer to a Maruti Omni car bearing registration No.KA-01-ME-4297, the charge sheet pertains to a Tata Indica car with a registration No. KA-01-MC-4297, which is insured with the appellant. It is also submitted that the charge sheet indicates that the complainant gave a further statement to the police on 20.01.2016, based on such further statement the charge sheet was subsequently prepared and filed. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the discrepancies between the complaint, FIR and the charge sheet and proceeded to fasten liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and meticulously perused the material available on record.

4. The records indicate that respondent No.1 filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident dated 17.01.2016. The injured claimant lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police on 19.01.2016, which is marked as Ex.P2, stating that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence of the driver of a Maruthi Omni car bearing registration No.KA-01-ME-4297. After the investigation, the jurisdictional police filed a charge sheet. A perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that though the initial complaint mentions the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01-ME-4297 and describes it as a Maruthi Omni car; however, in the further statement of the complainant dated 20.01.2016, which is marked as Ex.P2(a), indicates that the registration number and the description of the vehicle was incorrectly mentioned in the original complaint by inadvertence. The further statement also indicates that the accident has occurred due to the actionable negligence of the driver of a car bearing registration No.KA-01-MC-4297, which is a Tata Indica car.

5. It is not in dispute that the charge sheeted vehicle is insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. The contention with regard to the discrepancy in the vehicle number and description of make and model of the vehicle cannot be entertained at the appe