GIRIDHAR NEELAKANT PAI vs NEELAKANT NARAYAN PAI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
R
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF AUGUST 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101014 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
GIRIDHAR NEELAKANT PAI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MADANAGERI, TQ: KUMATA,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NEELAKANT NARAYAN PAI
AGE: MAJOR, R/O: MATADKERI, MADANAGERI,
TQ: KUMATA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
98 A, FIRST FLOOR, HULIDEVA COMPLEX,
NEAR GOBBS HIGH SCHOOL, KUMTA,
TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA,
BY ITS MANAGER.
3. NAGAPPA PUNDALIK PAI
AGE: MAJOR, R/O: MADANAGERI,
TQ: KUMATA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINAYKUMAR GANAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3;
SMT.PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
28.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.86/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
KUMTA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF
THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AND ETC.
Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’) by the
appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award
dated 28.11.2016 in MVC No.86/2011 on the file of
Additional M.A.C.T., Kumta (for short ‘the Tribunal’).
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as
they were before the Tribunal for sake of convenience and
clarity.
3. The claimant has filed the claim petition under
Section 166 of the M.V. Act before the Tribunal claiming
compensation of ₹15,00,000/- with interest in respect of
the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident
that has taken place on 15.09.2010 at about 01.30 a.m.
on NH-17 Ankola-Kumta road when claimant was the
pillion rider of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-47/H-3116.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
4. It is the case of the claimant that he was the
pillion rider of the offending motorcycle; respondent No.3
was its rider, who rode it rashly and negligently when they
came near Shiroor Village; the rider i.e., respondent No.3
lost his control over the vehicle, it became turtle; hence
the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he
was shifted to Government Hospital, Ankola. After taking
first aid treatment, he was further shifted to Vivekananda
Hospital, Hubballi, wherein he took treatment as inpatient
for 20 days; he also took treatment at Hinduja Hospital.
Hence, he claimed compensation to the injuries sustained
by him under different heads.
5. Respondent No.1 is the owner, respondent No.3
is the alleged rider of the motorcycle and respondent No.2
is the insurance Company of the motorcycle.
6. After service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 3
have filed their objection statement, wherein they have
taken contention that on 15.09.2010 evening, respondent
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
No.3 has taken the vehicle from the owner-respondent
No.1 with his consent and had been from Madangeri to
Ankola, wherein he performed his work, Ganapathi pooja,
etc. and while coming back, he has taken claimant in the
vehicle and when they came near Shiroor on National
Highway, he lost his control over the vehicle and because
of that, it became turtle and respondent No.3 had not
sustained any injuries as he was wearing helmet, the
claimant sustained injuries. Immediately respondent No.3
had been to bring the vehicle to take the claimant to the
hospital; in the meanwhile the complainant had seen the
claimant and took him to the hospital and then he lodged
the complaint without knowing that who was riding the
motorcycle. The charge-sheet is filed against respondent
No.3. After trial, he was acquitted in the said case.
Respondent Nos.1 and 3 have denied the contention taken
by respondent No.2 in his objection statement that
respondent No.3 is falsely implicated in the case. Hence,
they have prayed for awarding suitable compensation
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
amount to claimant and to dismiss the petition against
respondent Nos.1 and 3 as the vehicle is validly insured
with respondent No.2.
7. Respondent No.2 has filed objection statement
to the claim petition, wherein it denied the claim petition
averments in toto and further contended that initially the
complaint was lodged stating that the claimant was the
rider of the vehicle and only because he did not have valid
driving license, respondent No.3 is falsely implicated in the
case. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. After completion of pleadings, the Tribunal
framed issues, recorded the evidence of both sides and
after hearing arguments, concluded that the claimant
failed to establish that he was pillion rider of the offending
motorcycle as on the date of accident and thereby
dismissed the claim petition.
9. Aggrieved by the said judgment of dismissal
and award, the claimant is before this Court.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
10. Heard arguments of both sides.
11. Learned counsel for appellant-Sri J.S.Shetty
would submit that the claimant has produced ample
evidence before the Tribunal to show that he was pillion
rider of the offending motorcycle. Respondent No.3 was
the rider of the said vehicle; he was examined as R.W.2,
who has categorically deposed before the Court that he
was the rider of the motorcycle and withstood the cross-
examination. Furthermore, the person who lodged the
complaint is also examined before the Tribunal as R.W.3,
who has also stated that why he initially narrated that
claimant was the rider; thereafter, he gave further
statement before the investigating officer that respondent
No.3 was the rider. Thus, the claimant has established
before the Tribunal that the claimant was only the pillion
rider of the offending motorcycle and not the rider.
However, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated this
evidence and wrongly dismissed the claim petition.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
12. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant
places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Suhagrani and Others vs. Manager,
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company
Limited reported in (2025) 10 SCC 241.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance
Company, Smt.Preeti Shashank would submit that the
initial complaint clearly establishes that the claimant was
rider of the motorcycle. The cross-examination of said
complainant reveals that the claimant is a stranger to him.
He was present in the hospital up to 03.30 - 04.00 a.m. on
the date of accident. Respondent No.3 was not at all in the
picture at the time of lodging the complaint. Only 1 month
after the accident, respondent No.3 came into the picture.
The evidence of the claimant coupled with the evidence of
R.W.2 and R.W.3 and police records, clearly and
categorically establishes that respondent No.3 is
implicated only to provide compensation to the claimant
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
because it is a fact that the claimant did not have any
valid and effective driving licence to ride the motorcycle.
14. In this regard, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs.
Premlata Shukla and Others in Civil Appeal
No.2526/2007 (arising out of SLPC (C) No.2427/2006),
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Branch
Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs.
Smt.Kempamma and Others in MFA No.9053/2007
dated 10.04.2014 and judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Limited vs. B.C.Kumar and Another in MFA
No.3475/2008 dated 30.06.2009.
15. Having heard arguments of both sides,
verifying the appeal papers and Trial Court records, the
point that arises for consideration is:
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
“Whether the claimant establishes that he was
the pillion rider of the offending vehicle as on the
date of accident?”
16. Finding of this Court on the above point is in
the negative for the following:
REASONS
17. The claim petition is filed contending that the
claimant was pillion rider of the offending motorcycle at
the time of the accident and he sustained grievous injuries
in the said accident.
18. In this regard, the claimant places reliance on
the police records. Initially, the complaint was lodged by
R.W.3 on 15.09.2010 at 12.00 noon, and it was registered
as Crime No.266/2010. In the complaint, it is stated that
the complainant had been to Madangeri after completion
of pooja; while coming back to his place, Ankola, on
15.09.2010 at 01.40 a.m. the rider of a two-wheeler came
from Ankola side towards Kumta with great speed
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
negligently, and because of the negligence and speed, the
vehicle turned turtle on the road. Immediately, the
complainant has stopped his vehicle by the side of the
road, went near and found that the said rider had
sustained injuries to his head and legs, and he was
suffering from bleeding injuries. Then he enquired said
person who told his name as Giridhar Neelakant Pai (the
claimant), 36 year old, resident of Madanageri, Ankola;
then he provided treatment, then called 108 Ambulance
and in 108 Ambulance, he has sent the injured person to
the hospital and then he verified about the turtle
motorcycle; its Registration number was KA-47/H-3116
Honda Activa; it is further stated in the complaint that the
accident has taken place due to negligent riding of the
claimant and hence lodged the complaint by enquiring with
the relatives of the claimant belatedly i.e. at 12.00 p.m. of
the same day.
19. In this complaint, there is specific narration that
the complainant had seen the claimant riding the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
motorcycle with rashness and negligence and he turned
turtle the motorcycle and sustained injuries.
20. After lodging this complaint on 15.09.2010, the
police officer commenced the investigation and conducted
the investigation and then ultimately filed charge-sheet as
per Ex.P.5, wherein he has filed the charge-sheet against
respondent No.3 of present case. He has shown 12
witnesses in the charge-sheet.
21. Based on this charge-sheet, the claimant has
filed the present claim petition contending that he is the
pillion rider of the motorcycle.
22. After filing the case and after commencement of
evidence of the claimant and almost 1-½ years after
completion of his cross-examination, respondent Nos.1
and 3 have filed their application to permit them to file
objection statement, which was allowed by the Tribunal by
passing orders on I.A.No.5 on 13.04.2016 and then their
objection statement was taken on record.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
23. Generally, in the objection statement by the
owner or rider, they would deny the averments made in
the petition. But in this case, they have filed the objection
statement only to substantiate the claimant’s contention,
as is clear from the recitals of the objection statement
stated above. They are denying the averments in the
objection statement of respondent No.2-insurance
Company and not the claim petition.
24. This complainant was examined as R.W.3. He
was summoned on behalf of respondent No.1 & 3. In his
affidavit evidence, he has stated that on 15.09.2010 at
about 01.30 a.m. at Shiroor, he found the claimant of
present case, who was suffering from injuries and in semi-
consciousness state of mind because of the accidental
injury suffered by him from Honda Activa Motorcycle
No.KA-47/H-3116, and then he provided first-aid
treatment and sent him in a 108 Ambulance to the
hospital, and he thought that the claimant was the rider of
the motorcycle and lodged the complaint. Afterwards, once
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
he had been to Hubballi to bring articles to his shop, at
that time he came to know that the claimant was taking
treatment in Hubballi and went to see him and then came
to know that the claimant was pillion rider and rider was
respondent No.3, and hence gave further statement before
the police. Based on this further statement of R.W.3, the
charge-sheet is filed against respondent No.3.
25. In the cross-examination, this R.W.3 has
deposed that he had not seen the claimant, his father or
respondent No.3 earlier and they were not known to him
and they were not his relatives and not from his place. But
P.W.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that this
R.W.3 is related to him from his mother’s side; he has
known him for several years and R.W.3 knew respondent
No.3. Thus, the evidence of claimant and R.W.3 on this
point is quite contradictory.
26. In cross-examination, R.W.3 deposed that
about 25 days after lodging the complaint, he himself
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
voluntarily went to the police station to give his further
statement. The reason for giving such further statement is
that when he had been to Hubballi, the injured person
called him by phone and conveyed his thanks and before
making such phone call, he was not told who the rider of
the motorcycle was. Thus, he has given the further
statement. Said further statement is marked as Ex.R.5
through R.W.2.
27. According to Ex.R.5, this complainant visited
Vivekananda Hospital, Hubballi on 15.10.2010. In the
further statement, it is stated that on 15.10.2010 the
complainant had been to Hubballi to purchase things to his
stationary shop wherein he came to know that the injured
person-Giridhar Neelakant Pai was admitted to
Vivekananda Hospital and then he went to said hospital to
see the injured person; at that time injured person told
him that he was only pillion rider and respondent No.3 was
the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, he has given the said
further statement.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
28. Thus, according to this further statement on
15.09.2010, R.W.3 had gone to the Vivekananda Hospital,
Hubballi to see the claimant and at that time came to
know that the claimant was the pillion rider.
29. The discharge summary of Vivekananda
Hospital is produced by the claimant, which is marked as
Ex.P.191. According to this document, the claimant was
admitted to the said hospital on 15.09.2010 at 08.00 a.m.
and discharged from the said hospital on 04.10.2010 at
03.30 p.m. Thus, as on 15.10.2010, this claimant was not
at all admitted in Vivekananda Hospital. Thus, there was
no occasion for R.W.2 to go to the said hospital on
15.10.2010 and enquire about the claimant and then give
further statement as per Ex.R.5.
30. According to the cross-examination of the
claimant, he did not have valid and effective driving
licence to ride the motorcycle. However, respondent No.3
possessed licence to ride two-wheeler, three-wheeler and
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
four- wheeler. According to him, on the next day of
Ganapathi Chauthi Festival, he had gone to Ankola to see
Ganapathi and he left his house at Madankeri at about
04.30 p.m.; he was waiting at Ankola bus stand at about
08.30 p.m. and afterwards to come back to Madankeri.
However, he knew very well that there is no bus or tempo
after 07.00 p.m. between Ankola, Kumta and Honnavara
and there will not be any local buses from Gokarna or to
Madangeri. He knew that no non-stop bus would stop at
Madangeri. He was aware about all these facts before he
went to see Ganapathi in Ankola. But he had decided to
return to Ankola the same day. He knows how to ride two-
wheeler even though he does not possess a license to
drive two-wheeler.
31. Claimant denied the suggestion that because he
did not have driving licence to drive the motorcycle,
respondent No.3 is implicated in the case only to get
compensation from respondent No.2. According to him at
the time of lodging the complaint, R.W.3 did not know who
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
was riding the motorcycle. But as discussed above, the
complaint averments show that the complainant had seen
the accident and only afterwards he lodged the complaint.
32. R.W.2 is the alleged rider of the motorcycle. He
completely supports the claimant’s case in his evidence. In
the cross-examination of R.W.2 by the learned counsel for
the claimant, he has deposed that while coming back from
Ankola at about 12.30 midnight or 1.00 a.m., the claimant
became the pillion rider of the motorcycle and the accident
took place near Shiroor; at that time he was the rider of
the motorcycle. Immediately after the accident, he went in
a lorry to his village to make facility to bring the vehicle to
take the claimant to the hospital. According to him,
claimant had lost consciousness and was lying on that
spot. According to him, he laid down the claimant by the
side of the road and he was showing signals to the
vehicles which were going in that road and then took lift
from one lorry wherein only driver and cleaner were there,
but he did not make any effort to take the claimant in that
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
lorry to the hospital because it did occur to him at that
time.
33. The above evidence of R.W.2 is very strange.
When R.W.2 knew the claimant very well and taking the
claimant as pillion rider in the motorcycle belonging to the
father of claimant-respondent No.1, it is strange behaviour
to leave the unconscious claimant by the side of the road
and then go to his village to make arrangements to bring
vehicle; this is not an acceptable theory. No prudent man
would act in that way.
34. R.W.2 has deposed that he had never met
R.W.3. According to him, on the same day of accident,
after he returned to his village, about 30 - 45 minutes
later, he came back to the spot, but the claimant was not
there and on that night itself, he had been to Government
Hospital, Ankola and the claimant was in unconscious state
in that hospital, but nobody from the side of claimant was
in the said hospital and police also had not come.
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
According to R.W.3, he had taken claimant to the
Government Hospital, Ankola and was there in the said
hospital up to 03.30 - 04.00 a.m.; none of the relatives or
persons belonging to the claimant came to said hospital.
According to him, in the morning hours, the claimant
became conscious a little and was in a position to talk and
at that time, he enquired with claimant that who the rider
was and how the accident had taken place, but his talk
was not clear because there was injury to his tongue and
thus, he lodged complaint that the claimant was the rider
of the motorcycle. There is no consonance between the
evidence of R.W.2 and R.W.3 on this point.
35. According to R.W.2, he filed the objection
statement before commencement of evidence of claimant,
but the same is contrary to the Court records. As
discussed above, about 1.5 years after the completion of
evidence of claimant, this objection statement was filed
and accepted by the Court. These facts establish that
R.W.2 and R.W.3 are not deposing the truth.
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
36. According to the claimant, respondent No.3 is
from their village and he knows him very well. R.W.3 is
related to him through his mother, but the evidence of
R.W.3 is quite contrary to the same as discussed above.
37. If really as deposed by R.W.2 and stated by
claimant, R.W.2 was rider of the motorcycle and claimant
was its pillion rider and the vehicle was turtle on the road;
definitely R.W.2 would also have sustained some injuries,
but according to him, no such injuries were caused to him.
In the cross-examination, he has deposed that only a
minor injury sustained by him and he has not taken
treatment for those injuries. This is also not acceptable.
38. Merely because charge-sheet is filed against
respondent No.3 stating that he is the rider of the
motorcycle, it cannot be accepted as true until and unless
it is established by claimant.
39. In this regard, this Court places reliance on the
co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Umakant
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
Ranappa Bosle v. Rachappa Veerupaxappa Marihal,
based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court held
that if charge-sheet is to be accepted without proof, then
the entire process of recording evidence of adjudication
would become redundant. They are to be accepted to
believe as prima facie case. But, when suspicion arises,
then the Tribunal has to investigate the matter and the
claimant has to prove the case. The relevant paragraph
Nos.35 and 36 are as below:-
“35. The main contention of the claimant that
once the police file a charge sheet, the Tribunal
cannot go beyond the contents of the charge
sheet and question whether the accident occurred
or whether the alleged vehicle was involved. This
contention is untenable. The recording of the
evidence. Production of documents and hearing
both sides and assigning reasons to answer each
issues, even in a summary trial before the
Tribunal, is not a formality. If a charge sheet is to
be accepted without proof, then the entire
process of evidence recording and adjudication
would become redundant. They are to be
accepted to believe as prima facie case. If doubt
arises as in the present case. The Tribunal has to
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
investigate truth in the said case to decide
whether such accident occurred due to
involvement of vehicle.
36. In cases where doubts arise regarding
the genuineness of the charge sheet, it is a duty
of claimant to prove that the accident occurred
with the involvement of the offending vehicle and
that he sustained injuries as a result. The burden
of proof on issue No.1 always lie with the
claimant. The fundamental principle of proving a
fact remains with the person who asserts a fact.
Therefore, the said contention is not acceptable.”
40. In the said case, it is held that mere filing of
charge-sheet would not prove the case as narrated in the
charge-sheet. It is the initial burden of claimant to
establish that the accident has taken place as narrated in
the claim petition. The facts narrated in the charge-sheet
cannot be gospel truth.
41. In the present case, even though respondent
No.3 himself came forward to give evidence and
complainant was examined as R.W.3 and not as the
claimant's witness shows that there is clear collusion in
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
between claimant, respondent Nos.1, 3 and complainant to
manipulate the case.
42. Even though in the case of present nature,
claimant has to establish the factum of accident only with
the principle of preponderance of probability and not the
strict proof of beyond reasonable doubt as required in
criminal cases. However, even though the claimant is not
supposed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt,
there shall not be any suspicion about the case of the
claimant as arose in the present case.
43. Claimant places reliance on FIR, complaint and
spot panchanama to say that the accident has taken place
on 15.09.2010 at about 01.30 a.m., wherein he sustained
injuries. However, he is not relying on these documents to
say who the rider of the offending motorcycle was. In this
regard, learned counsel for respondent No.2 places
reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Oriental insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Premlata
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
Shukla and others reported in 2009 (1) SCC (CRI) 204
at paragraph No.12, which reads as follows:
“12. In Narbada Devi (supra) whereupon
reliance has been placed, this Court held that
contents of a document are not automatically proved
only because the same is marked as an Exhibit.
There is no dispute with regard to the said legal
proposition.”
44. In the instant case also, when the claimant
places reliance on FIR, complaint and police papers to
prove the accident; he cannot deny the averments in
those records regarding the rider of the vehicle.
45. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied
by the learned counsel for the appellant in Suhagrani’s
case cited supra at paragraph No.12, held as follows:
“12. The jurisdictional police who had recorded
the statement (Ext. D-1) of PW 2 was not
examined. No attempts have been made by the
insurer of the offending vehicle to prove the
contents of Ext. D-1. This is yet another reason as
to why the findings recorded by the High Court in
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
this regard cannot be sustained. The fact that the
jurisdictional police had conducted investigation
and recorded the statement of various persons
during course of investigation had resulted in
filing of the charge-sheet against the driver of the
offending vehicle which is not in dispute has been
completely ignored by the High Court and it has
proceeded to doubt the very occurrence of the
accident, by ignoring the vital evidence available
on record. No reason has been assigned by the
High Court as to why the said evidence was being
brushed aside or not taken into consideration.”
46. In the aforesaid case, the Tribunal has allowed
the claim petition by giving some reasons which were not
accepted by the High Court and it was reversed by the
High Court holding that the claimant failed to prove the
accident as narrated by him.
47. In the instant case, as discussed above, the case
of the claimant was not at all accepted by the Tribunal by
giving cogent reasons, which is under challenge in this
appeal. Thus, the facts and circumstances of present case
and the case relied by the appellant are entirely different.
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
Under these circumstances, placing reliance on Ex.R.5 is
also not proper. In this case, there are proper reasons to
disbelieve the case of the claimant. For the sake of
convenience, those reasons are reiterated as follows:
I. Complaint is lodged stating the name and
address of the claimant and that he was the
rider of the motorcycle, by enquiring
claimant, because the complainant did not
know the claimant before lodging the
complaint.
II. About 1 month afterwards, the complainant
gave further statement before the
Investigating Officer that he came to know
that the claimant was only pillion rider
because he met the claimant at the
Vivekananda Hospital; but as on the alleged
date of R.W.3 meeting claimant in the
hospital, claimant was not at all admitted in
said hospital.
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
III. R.W.2 i.e., the alleged rider came into the
picture only about 1 month after the
accident. Till then the claimant was the
suspected rider of the motorcycle.
IV. It is a fact that the claimant did not possess
driving licence to ride the motorcycle,
whereas respondent No.3 possessed one.
Respondent No.3 is from the same village of
claimant.
V. The cross-examination of the claimant
establishes that his affidavit evidence does
not inspire confidence that he became the
pillion rider of the motorcycle in the
midnight and he was not the rider.
VI. R.W.2 left the claimant in the middle of the
road and went to his village in a lorry which
is also strange behaviour and not
acceptable.
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
48. For the above reasons, this Court does not
believe the statement of claimant that he was only pillion
rider. On the other hand, the facts established before the
Tribunal are that the claimant, in collusion with his own
father (respondent No.1) and respondent No.3-the person
of his village and R.W.3, the complainant manipulated the
case as if he is pillion rider, even though he was the rider
of the motorcycle.
49. Thus, apparently a fraud has been committed by
the claimant in collusion with respondent Nos.1, 3 and
R.W.3 solely to obtain compensation from respondent
No.2-insurance Company. Thus, this Court holds that the
appeal is to be dismissed by imposing heavy costs and a
direction is to be issued to the State Police Authorities to
investigate the matter in an appropriate manner. Hence,
this Court passes the following:
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14161
MFA No. 101014 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020068642017
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed with costs of
₹10,000/-.
ii) The aforesaid costs shall be deposited
before the Advocates’ Library Fund, High
Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad within one month.
iii) The Inspector General of Police , Western
Range, Mangalore is directed to investigate
the matter afresh by constituting a Special
Investigation Team (SIT) and submit its
report within the period of three months.
iv) Send a copy of this judgment to Inspector
General of Police, Western Range,
Mangalore for compliance.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SH upto para 32
SSP from 33-end
CT:VH
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5