Motor Accident Victim Must Lodge Complaint In Time; Karnataka High Court Dismisses Compensation Appeal Over Unexplained 24-Day Delay And Doubt On Vehicle Involvement
Isabella Mariam
The Karnataka High Court Single Bench of Justice P Sree Sudha upheld the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order refusing compensation to an injured claimant, finding no reason to interfere. The dispute concerned allegations of injury from a motorcycle collision on a national highway, with the claimant asserting fracture injuries due to rash riding by the offending vehicle. The court confirmed the tribunal’s view that the vehicle’s involvement was not proved, citing unexplained delay of 24 days in lodging the complaint and discrepancies across medical and police records. It concluded that planting or involving the motorcycle to wrongfully claim compensation could not be excluded and directed dismissal of the appeal, leaving the claimant without compensation.
The dispute concerned a compensation claim for injuries from an accident involving a motorcycle on a national highway. The claimant was the vehicle owner-cum-driver of an auto rickshaw, who asserted that at about 7:00 p.m., while he was near a highway fuel station, a speeding motorcycle came from the wrong side and struck him, causing fracture injuries. He stated he was admitted to a private hospital for treatment.
The claimant filed a compensation petition before the tribunal, seeking damages for injury. The insurance company opposed the claim, alleging that it was not informed of the accident, the policy was not in existence at the time, and the accident occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction as both the claimant and accident site were in another state. It further alleged collusion between the claimant, the motorcycle owner, and authorities, and suggested the insured vehicle was planted to claim compensation.
Before the High Court, the claimant challenged the tribunal’s view that there was 24-day delay in lodging the complaint without reasons, and that documents relating to investigation and injury were inconsistent in medical and police records. He contended that errors in dates and medical entry numbers were oversights.
The claimant examined three witnesses and submitted multiple documents marked as exhibits. The insurance company examined two witnesses and produced one document. The claimant invoked the statutory right to appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to challenge the dismissal, asserting the tribunal had not appreciated the record accurately.
The Court recorded that although the appellant claimed the accident occurred on 22.12.2013, “the complaint was given on 15.01.2014… and there is an inordinate delay of 24 days and no reasons are assigned for the said delay in giving the complaint.” It noted that in the complaint “the date of accident is shown as 23.01.2013,” whereas the spot panchanama mentioned 03.01.2014 and the charge sheet recorded 22.12.2014. The Court observed that “there are so many discrepancies in the material documents regarding the date of accident and the witnesses simply stated that it was a mistake or oversight. Considering the above said aspects, the said explanation cannot be accepted.”
Referring to the medico-legal records, the Court stated that “in the injury certificate… MLC number is shown as ‘16’ and in the complaint, it was registered as per MLC No.699/2014.” PW3 also admitted that “MLC No.16 is not for the year 2013.” The Court noted that the Head Constable who allegedly prepared the complaint was examined, but “the copy of the said complaint is not filed before the Court.”
The Court further recorded that “the Motor vehicle (MV) report of the offending vehicle is not produced before the Court and no explanation is given for the same.” It upheld the Tribunal’s view that unexplained delay in filing the complaint and absence of supporting documents could not be overlooked. It also noted the Tribunal’s finding that “the possibility of planting or involving the motorcycle No.MH-13-BK-7672 cannot be ruled out.”
The Court relied on a precedent reported in (2009) 1 KACJ 500, quoting extensively: “this branch of law is slowly getting into the hands of unscrupulous people who are making a mockery of judicial process… a disturbing trend of unholy alliance among the police, the doctors, the lawyers and sometimes even the Insurance Company… to siphon out the public money.” It further recorded the extract: “it is imperative that a strong message is to be sent to the abusers of the judicial process to discourage them… the insurance company is not liable to indemnify… as we have recorded a finding that it was not involved in the accident.”
Based on these findings, the Court held that “it is for the appellant to prove the involvement of the vehicle and the existence of the policy as on the date of accident,” and that the appellant had failed to discharge this burden due to the unexplained delay and discrepancies in the documents.
The Court recorded: “this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed by confirming the award of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the entire evidence on record and dismissed the award.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Appellant: Sri. Sanganagouda V. Biradar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Manjunath Mallayya Shetty, Advocate for R2; Notice to R1 held sufficient
Cae Title: Suresh v. Siddarama & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-K:6580
Case Number: MFA No. 200941 of 2019
Bench: Justice P. Sree Sudha
