SRI N GANESH vs SRI V SELVARAJ

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60006
MFA No. 8870 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010525932013



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8870 OF 2013(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI N GANESH
AGE: 50 YEARS,
S/O LATE M.S. NARAYANA AYYAR,
OCC: NIL, R/O NO.1908/5,
RD
3 CROSS, PRASHANTHANAGAR,
HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 079.
…APPELLANT






(BY SRI SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1. SRI V SELVARAJ
S/O P. VELUSWAMY,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O NO.12,
TH
7 CROSS, CHOLUR PALYA,
BANGALORE - 560 023.

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DO.NO.9, NO.5, VATAL NAGARAJ ROAD,
OKALIPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 025.
…RESPONDENTS

SIGN

(BY SRI K.S.LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI A M VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/C/O DATED 08.03.2019 - SERVICE OF
NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60006
MFA No. 8870 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010525932013


THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.01.2012 PASSED IN MVC
TH
NO.4460/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE 16 ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT,
BANGALORE, DISMISSING CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 03.01.2012
passed by XVI Additional Judge, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC
no.4460/2003, this appeal is filed.


2. Sri Suresh M Latur, learned counsel for appellant
submitted, this appeal was by claimant challenging dismissal of
claim petition. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that at 6:30
a.m. on 25.08.2003, when claimant was crossing road in front
of Ashoka Hotel en route Basaveshwara Temple, rider of TVS
Motorcycle no.KA-02-S-5268, rode it in rash and negligent
manner and it dashed against him, causing accident. Despite
taking treatment at Shobha Nursing Home and later at KC
General Hospital, Bengaluru, he did not recover fully and
sustained loss of earning capacity. Claiming compensation, he

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60006
MFA No. 8870 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010525932013


filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 ( MV Act ) against owner/rider and insurer of motorcycle.


3. Despite service of notice, owner/rider of motorcycle
did not appear and was placed ex parte . Insurer opposed claim
petition on all grounds including negligence on part of rider of
motorcycle, denying involvement of insured vehicle and
alleging violation of certain terms and conditions of policy by
insured. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence.


4. Claimant along with Dr.Malinamani deposed as
PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P16. In rebuttal,
official of Insurance Company was examined as RW.1 and got
marked Exhibits R1 to R3. On consideration, Tribunal answered
issues no.1 and 2 as not arisen for consideration and issue no.3
by dismissing petition. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal was filed.


5. It was submitted that though in initial complaint
filed, registration number of offending vehicle was inadvertently
mentioned as KA-02-5378, actual vehicle which had caused
accident was TVS Suzuki motorcycle no.KA-02-S-5268. It was

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60006
MFA No. 8870 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010525932013


submitted, very next day after filing of complaint, complainant
had given further statement in which he had mentioned correct
vehicle number. It was submitted, while dismissing claim
petition, Tribunal held that vehicle number mentioned in charge
sheet, spot panchanama, etc. was KA-02-5378. It was
submitted, claimant was consistent in description of offending
vehicle as TVS Suzuki motorcycle. It was submitted, documents
secured from RTO office i.e., vehicle registration extract
produced along with IA no.1/2021 would indicate that vehicle
with registration no.KA-02-5378 was Auto-rickshaw while
vehicle with registration no.KA-02-S-5268 was TVS Suzuki
motorcycle. Above material would indicate that accident in
question was caused by TVS Suzuki motorcycle and mere
erroneous mention in vehicle number ought not to lead to
dismissal of claim petition. It was further submitted, in their
written statement, insurer had not totally denied accident in
question but only disputed negligence aspect and same had to
be considered as admission of insurer in involvement of vehicle
in accident. Even in cross-examination, suggestions made
would amount to admission of accident. Therefore, dismissal of

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60006
MFA No. 8870 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010525932013


claim petition by Tribunal was not justified and sought for
reversal of same by awarding appropriate compensation.


6. On other hand, Sri KS Lakshmi Narasappa, learned
counsel appearing for Sri AM Venkatesh, learned counsel for
respondent no.1-insurer would oppose appeal. It was
submitted, reasons assigned by Tribunal for dismissal were
stated in paragraphs 12 to 15. It was submitted, records would
fully justify said order and therefore, sought for dismissal of
appeal. It was also submitted by learned counsel for appellant
that even rider of motorcycle had appeared and pleaded guilty
to have caused accident in criminal proceedings.


7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment, award and record.


8. Since claimant is in appeal challenging dismissal of
claim petition, point arises for consideration is:

"Whether Tribunal was justified in dismissing claim
petition?"



9. This appeal is by claimant challenging dismissal of
claim petition. While passing impugned award, Tribunal

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60006
MFA No. 8870 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010525932013


examined discrepancy insofar as vehicle number right from
Ex.P1 - FIR and compared it with Exs.R1, R2 and R3 - FIR,
charge sheet and sketch, certified copies of which were
produced by respondents. Though claimant sought to contend
that vehicle number was erroneously entered in complaint/FIR
but corrected in further statement, Tribunal found that
documents marked as Exs.P1 to P4 were inconsistent with
Exs.R1 to R3. There was clear alteration of vehicle number by
overwriting number as 'KA-02- 5378' as 'KA-02-S-5268'. Said
tampering was not only in Ex.P2 - Chargesheet but also in
Ex.P4 - spot panchanama. In fact, on noticing such
discrepancy, when earlier claim petition was disposed of, in
appeal, matter was remitted back by this Court reserving
liberty to claimant to lead further evidence to summon police
personnel or offer explanation. Tribunal however noted that
after remand, claimant did not lead any further evidence
prompting Tribunal to draw adverse inference. Thus, it is seen
that claim petition was dismissed not only on ground of mistake
in mentioning vehicle number in complaint but on ground that
claimant tampered with certified copies produced before Court
by altering vehicle number from '5378' to '5268'. Time and

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60006
MFA No. 8870 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010525932013


again, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held claim petition filed with
unclean hands, cannot be entertained. Therefore, Tribunal
would be justified in dismissing claim petition.


10. In view of above, point for consideration is
answered in affirmative.

dismissed
Appeal is by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/-
payable to insurer.

Pending applications, if any, are dismissed as
unnecessary.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE



AV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22