Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4545 OF 2016 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4546 OF 2016 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 4545/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. S. RAMESH
S/O SAGAYA GOUNDAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.119, 3RD CROSS,
VIJAYANAGAR, WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K P JAYARAM
NO.18, RUTLAND GATE,
4TH STREET, NEMGEMBAKHAM,
CHENNAI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE VI,
NO.89/1, 2ND FLOOR,
11TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
BY ITS MANAGER
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed
by
PADMASHREE
SHEKHAR
DESAI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
(BY SRI. Y P VENKATAPATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R2,
V/O DTD: 29.03.2019, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED11.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1420/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER,MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 4546/2016
BETWEEN:
SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O SAGAYA GOUNDAR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.119, 3RD CROSS,
VIJAYANAGAR,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. K P JAYARAM
NO.18, RUTLAND GATE,
4TH STREET,
NEMGEMBAKHAM,
CHENNAI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE VI,
NO.89/1, 2ND FLOOR,
11TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
BY ITS MANAGER
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE,
SRI. Y.P. VENKATAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
V/O DTD: 29.03.2019, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.11.2009 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1421/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 05.02.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
CAV JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed against the common order dated
11.08.2015 passed by the XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge &
MACT in MVC Nos.1420 and 1421 of 2007.
2. MFA No.4545/2016 is filed against the order of the
Tribunal in MVC 1420/2007 and the claimant in MVC
No.1421/2007 preferred MFA No.4546/2016. Injured claimants
met with an accident on 19.12.2006 and filed claim petitions
claiming compensation of 5 lakhs and 1 lakh respectively. The
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record and
dismissed the claim petitions.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, they preferred appeals
and mainly contended that the Tribunal dismissed the entire
claim petitions without awarding any compensation solely on
the ground that the petitioners failed to prove involvement of
the insured car bearing registration No.TN-01-Q-8399 without
answering other issues.
4. Sri K.T.Gurudev Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellants contended that the petitioner gave complaint on
19.12.2006 itself immediately after the accident without any
delay. In the complaint, the vehicle number is shown as TN-01-
Q-9233, which is a mistake. Admittedly, it is Tata Indica car
bearing registration number TN-01-Q-8399. PW5, RTO official
from Tamil Nadu specifically stated that there is no such vehicle
bearing registration number TN-01-Q-9233 and the vehicle,
Tata Indica car bearing registration number is only TN-01-Q-
8399, which is a crucial evidence. Initially based on the said
evidence, Tribunal ought to have concluded that the vehicle
involved in the accident is TN-01-Q-8399. Merely because there
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
was some mistake in the FIR, the same cannot be a ground to
deny the compensation by dismissing the claim petitions.
Therefore, he requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal.
5. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner in MVC
No.1420/2007 is the rider and petitioner in MVC No.1421/2007
is the pillion rider. While they were proceeding on a motorcycle
bearing registration number KA-53-H-220 on the left side of the
ITPL road and reached near Kendriya Ugrana Samste, the car
bearing registration No.TN-01-Q-8399 came from opposite
direction in rash and negligent manner without giving any
signal suddenly took right turn and dashed against their
motorcycle. As a result, they sustained injuries.
6. First respondent is the owner and second
respondent is insurer of the offending vehicle and both of them
are jointly liable to pay the compensation. First respondent
remained ex parte. The second respondent in its objections
denied the involvement of the vehicle, that the car driver did
not possess valid and effective driving licence and the car was
also not having valid and effective documents in force as on the
date of accident which amounts to breach of policy conditions.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
They have disputed the involvement of the car itself and further
stated that there is contributory negligence on the part of the
rider of the motorcycle.
7. The rider and pillion rider were examined as PWs.1
and 2. The Record keeper of Vydehi Hospital is examined as
PW3 and 20 documents are marked. Respondent No.2
examined their administrative officer as RW.1 and filed Ex.R4
policy copy. Accident took place on 19.12.2006 at 08.20 a.m.
and complaint was given on the same day at 06.30 p.m. in
which the vehicle number is shown as TN-01-Q-9233. ExR2 is
the spot mahazar which was conducted on the same day
between 06.30 p.m. to 07.30 p.m. in which it was stated that
both the vehicles viz., motorcycle bearing No.KA 53-H-220 and
car bearing No.TN-01-Q-9233 were not at the spot. Ex.R3 is
the spot sketch where the car number is shown as 9233. The
Tribunal observed that these important documents were not
filed by the claimants before the Court.
8. The petitioner produced additional documents
Ex.P18 to P20. P18 is certified copy of the notice issued by
police to the RC owner. In that initially it was written as 9233
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
which was strike off and re-written as 8399. Ex.P19 and P20
are bail bond and IMV report dated 08.02.2007 and 09.02.2007
respectively and they are filed after 2 months of the accident in
which the vehicle number is shown as 8399. Though in the
initial records the vehicle number is shown as 9233, charge
sheet is filed against 8399. But the Investigating Officer is not
examined and the driver of the vehicle was also not examined.
9. Perusal of the order shows that initially it was
dismissed on 23.11.2009 against which the claimants preferred
appeals in MFA Nos.7978/2010 and 7980/2010 and by the
order dated 03.02.2015 the matters are remanded back for
fresh consideration. As per the direction, the petitioner in MVC
No.1420/2007 was recalled. He filed his affidavit evidence, got
marked Ex.P21 and examined PW.5/Junior Assistant working as
RTO, Chennai and he produced Exs.P22 to P24. Learned
counsel for respondent No.2 reported that he has no further
evidence. As such the Tribunal considering the arguments of
both sides and appreciating the entire evidence on record,
dismissed the claim petitions again. Aggrieved by the said
order, the claimants preferred these appeals.
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
10. PW5/Junior Assistant of RTO, Chennai stated that
there is no such vehicle bearing number 9233 and he further
explained that usually in their State such numbers with a total
of 8 will not be registered. But he has not filed any supporting
document to substantiate his version. No eye witness was
examined.
11. PW.1 in his cross-examination stated that Ex.P21 is
the B extract of the vehicle bearing number 8399. He further
stated that he does not know who has strike off the number
9233 and written 8399 in Ex.P18 and 18(a). In the evidence he
stated that he went to the police station after 3 or 4 days of the
accident and has seen the car. Then only he gave the correct
vehicle number as 8399. Again he stated that he went to the
police station only after 2 months and by that time, car was
there and then he changed the vehicle number. He further
stated that he called the lady driver of the car viz., Deepa
Sreenivasan and mentioned the number initially as TN-01 Q
9233 and later rectified it as TN 01 Q 8399 and he has not
produced any notice given to the driver of the car bearing
No.TN-01 Q 9233. He further stated that the car is Tata Indica
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
car, but he did not know the owner of the car. He further
stated that lady driver of the car bearing No.TN-01 Q 9233 had
taken him to the hospital, but she was not examined before the
Court. It was suggested that he himself was negligent in driving
the motorcycle and dashed against the car bearing No. TN-01 Q
9233, but he denied it. He simply stated that by oversight
vehicle number is mentioned as 9233 instead of 8399 in Crime
No.443/2006. The number of the vehicle is shown as 9233 in
FIR, Spot Sketch and Mahazar. It cannot be considered that
number is shown by oversight and it is clear case of implication
of vehicle to gain wrongfully.
12. In a citation in (2009) 1 KACJ 500 between
Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another it was
held as follows:
“ The experience has shown that
this branch of law is slowly getting
into the hands of unscrupulous
people who are making a mockery
of judicial process. A disturbing
tread of unholy alliance among the
police, the doctors, the lawyers
and some times even the
Insurance Company, to siphorn out
the public money, and make an
unlawful gain is fast emerging. It is
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
also gaining respectability and
persons who indulge in such
practices are acclaimed as most
successful in their respective
profession. This is a dangerous
trend, if unchecked would
undermine the judicial process. As
the existing law is inadequate to
check this malady, the Courts not
only have to be careful in
adjudicating such claims but also
find ways to prevent such abuse
They have to balance the interest
of these accident victims and their
legal heirs on one side, by giving
them just compensation at the
earliest, thus giving effect to the
mandate of the parliament, and on
the other hand, to see that the
very process is not abused and
exploited by a handful of persons,
who have attained specialization in
this field, to make personal gains
at the cost of the exchequer. An
onerous responsibility lies on the
Courts. Therefore, it is imperative
that a strong message is to be
sent to the abusers of the judicial
process to discourage them from
indulging in such practices as well
as the consequences of such abuse
may result in foisting the liability
exclusively on the insured-owner
of the vehicle. (Para 16).
19. It is once again made clear
that notwithstanding the vehicle of
st
the 1 respondent was insured
with the 2nd respondent, the
insurance company is not liable to
indemnify the insured as we have
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
recorded a finding that it was not
involved in the accident.
Therefore, there is no third party
liability on the part of the
insurance company to pay
compensation to the claimants.
This amount is awarded in order to
see that in future such false
defences are not filed before
Court, judicial process is not
st
abused. Therefore, it is only the 1
respondent/owner who is liable to
pay the aforesaid amount. Ordered
accordingly.
13. Basing on the above citation though it is a beneficial
legislation, it is for the court to see that there is any abuse of
process or implication of vehicle to gain wrongfully. After
proper investigation PW.1 came to know about the number of
the vehicle as 8399 and the same is mentioned in IMV report
and charge sheet. Police recorded the statement of PW.1 under
Ex.P3 and Exs.P21 is the B extract of the insured vehicle. He
further admitted that he was in the hospital for 15 days. But,
he does not know whether he was in the hospital on
08.02.2007. There are variations in his evidence regarding the
fact when he went to the police station. Initially he said that 3
or 4 days after the accident he went to the police station. By
that time car was there and again he stated that he went after
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
2 months and only on seeing the vehicle in the police station he
changed the vehicle number. The Tribunal rightly considered all
the aspects in detail and stated that the claimants have failed
to prove the involvement of the vehicle and dismissed the claim
petitions. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said
order.
In the result, there is no merits in the appeals and same
are dismissed, confirming the order of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
AKC
CT:NR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4545 OF 2016 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4546 OF 2016 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 4545/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. S. RAMESH
S/O SAGAYA GOUNDAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.119, 3RD CROSS,
VIJAYANAGAR, WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K P JAYARAM
NO.18, RUTLAND GATE,
4TH STREET, NEMGEMBAKHAM,
CHENNAI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE VI,
NO.89/1, 2ND FLOOR,
11TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
BY ITS MANAGER
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed
by
PADMASHREE
SHEKHAR
DESAI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
(BY SRI. Y P VENKATAPATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R2,
V/O DTD: 29.03.2019, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED11.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1420/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER,MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 4546/2016
BETWEEN:
SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O SAGAYA GOUNDAR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.119, 3RD CROSS,
VIJAYANAGAR,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. K P JAYARAM
NO.18, RUTLAND GATE,
4TH STREET,
NEMGEMBAKHAM,
CHENNAI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE VI,
NO.89/1, 2ND FLOOR,
11TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
BY ITS MANAGER
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE,
SRI. Y.P. VENKATAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
V/O DTD: 29.03.2019, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.11.2009 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1421/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 05.02.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
CAV JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed against the common order dated
11.08.2015 passed by the XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge &
MACT in MVC Nos.1420 and 1421 of 2007.
2. MFA No.4545/2016 is filed against the order of the
Tribunal in MVC 1420/2007 and the claimant in MVC
No.1421/2007 preferred MFA No.4546/2016. Injured claimants
met with an accident on 19.12.2006 and filed claim petitions
claiming compensation of 5 lakhs and 1 lakh respectively. The
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record and
dismissed the claim petitions.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, they preferred appeals
and mainly contended that the Tribunal dismissed the entire
claim petitions without awarding any compensation solely on
the ground that the petitioners failed to prove involvement of
the insured car bearing registration No.TN-01-Q-8399 without
answering other issues.
4. Sri K.T.Gurudev Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellants contended that the petitioner gave complaint on
19.12.2006 itself immediately after the accident without any
delay. In the complaint, the vehicle number is shown as TN-01-
Q-9233, which is a mistake. Admittedly, it is Tata Indica car
bearing registration number TN-01-Q-8399. PW5, RTO official
from Tamil Nadu specifically stated that there is no such vehicle
bearing registration number TN-01-Q-9233 and the vehicle,
Tata Indica car bearing registration number is only TN-01-Q-
8399, which is a crucial evidence. Initially based on the said
evidence, Tribunal ought to have concluded that the vehicle
involved in the accident is TN-01-Q-8399. Merely because there
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
was some mistake in the FIR, the same cannot be a ground to
deny the compensation by dismissing the claim petitions.
Therefore, he requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal.
5. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner in MVC
No.1420/2007 is the rider and petitioner in MVC No.1421/2007
is the pillion rider. While they were proceeding on a motorcycle
bearing registration number KA-53-H-220 on the left side of the
ITPL road and reached near Kendriya Ugrana Samste, the car
bearing registration No.TN-01-Q-8399 came from opposite
direction in rash and negligent manner without giving any
signal suddenly took right turn and dashed against their
motorcycle. As a result, they sustained injuries.
6. First respondent is the owner and second
respondent is insurer of the offending vehicle and both of them
are jointly liable to pay the compensation. First respondent
remained ex parte. The second respondent in its objections
denied the involvement of the vehicle, that the car driver did
not possess valid and effective driving licence and the car was
also not having valid and effective documents in force as on the
date of accident which amounts to breach of policy conditions.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
They have disputed the involvement of the car itself and further
stated that there is contributory negligence on the part of the
rider of the motorcycle.
7. The rider and pillion rider were examined as PWs.1
and 2. The Record keeper of Vydehi Hospital is examined as
PW3 and 20 documents are marked. Respondent No.2
examined their administrative officer as RW.1 and filed Ex.R4
policy copy. Accident took place on 19.12.2006 at 08.20 a.m.
and complaint was given on the same day at 06.30 p.m. in
which the vehicle number is shown as TN-01-Q-9233. ExR2 is
the spot mahazar which was conducted on the same day
between 06.30 p.m. to 07.30 p.m. in which it was stated that
both the vehicles viz., motorcycle bearing No.KA 53-H-220 and
car bearing No.TN-01-Q-9233 were not at the spot. Ex.R3 is
the spot sketch where the car number is shown as 9233. The
Tribunal observed that these important documents were not
filed by the claimants before the Court.
8. The petitioner produced additional documents
Ex.P18 to P20. P18 is certified copy of the notice issued by
police to the RC owner. In that initially it was written as 9233
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
which was strike off and re-written as 8399. Ex.P19 and P20
are bail bond and IMV report dated 08.02.2007 and 09.02.2007
respectively and they are filed after 2 months of the accident in
which the vehicle number is shown as 8399. Though in the
initial records the vehicle number is shown as 9233, charge
sheet is filed against 8399. But the Investigating Officer is not
examined and the driver of the vehicle was also not examined.
9. Perusal of the order shows that initially it was
dismissed on 23.11.2009 against which the claimants preferred
appeals in MFA Nos.7978/2010 and 7980/2010 and by the
order dated 03.02.2015 the matters are remanded back for
fresh consideration. As per the direction, the petitioner in MVC
No.1420/2007 was recalled. He filed his affidavit evidence, got
marked Ex.P21 and examined PW.5/Junior Assistant working as
RTO, Chennai and he produced Exs.P22 to P24. Learned
counsel for respondent No.2 reported that he has no further
evidence. As such the Tribunal considering the arguments of
both sides and appreciating the entire evidence on record,
dismissed the claim petitions again. Aggrieved by the said
order, the claimants preferred these appeals.
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
10. PW5/Junior Assistant of RTO, Chennai stated that
there is no such vehicle bearing number 9233 and he further
explained that usually in their State such numbers with a total
of 8 will not be registered. But he has not filed any supporting
document to substantiate his version. No eye witness was
examined.
11. PW.1 in his cross-examination stated that Ex.P21 is
the B extract of the vehicle bearing number 8399. He further
stated that he does not know who has strike off the number
9233 and written 8399 in Ex.P18 and 18(a). In the evidence he
stated that he went to the police station after 3 or 4 days of the
accident and has seen the car. Then only he gave the correct
vehicle number as 8399. Again he stated that he went to the
police station only after 2 months and by that time, car was
there and then he changed the vehicle number. He further
stated that he called the lady driver of the car viz., Deepa
Sreenivasan and mentioned the number initially as TN-01 Q
9233 and later rectified it as TN 01 Q 8399 and he has not
produced any notice given to the driver of the car bearing
No.TN-01 Q 9233. He further stated that the car is Tata Indica
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
car, but he did not know the owner of the car. He further
stated that lady driver of the car bearing No.TN-01 Q 9233 had
taken him to the hospital, but she was not examined before the
Court. It was suggested that he himself was negligent in driving
the motorcycle and dashed against the car bearing No. TN-01 Q
9233, but he denied it. He simply stated that by oversight
vehicle number is mentioned as 9233 instead of 8399 in Crime
No.443/2006. The number of the vehicle is shown as 9233 in
FIR, Spot Sketch and Mahazar. It cannot be considered that
number is shown by oversight and it is clear case of implication
of vehicle to gain wrongfully.
12. In a citation in (2009) 1 KACJ 500 between
Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another it was
held as follows:
“ The experience has shown that
this branch of law is slowly getting
into the hands of unscrupulous
people who are making a mockery
of judicial process. A disturbing
tread of unholy alliance among the
police, the doctors, the lawyers
and some times even the
Insurance Company, to siphorn out
the public money, and make an
unlawful gain is fast emerging. It is
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
also gaining respectability and
persons who indulge in such
practices are acclaimed as most
successful in their respective
profession. This is a dangerous
trend, if unchecked would
undermine the judicial process. As
the existing law is inadequate to
check this malady, the Courts not
only have to be careful in
adjudicating such claims but also
find ways to prevent such abuse
They have to balance the interest
of these accident victims and their
legal heirs on one side, by giving
them just compensation at the
earliest, thus giving effect to the
mandate of the parliament, and on
the other hand, to see that the
very process is not abused and
exploited by a handful of persons,
who have attained specialization in
this field, to make personal gains
at the cost of the exchequer. An
onerous responsibility lies on the
Courts. Therefore, it is imperative
that a strong message is to be
sent to the abusers of the judicial
process to discourage them from
indulging in such practices as well
as the consequences of such abuse
may result in foisting the liability
exclusively on the insured-owner
of the vehicle. (Para 16).
19. It is once again made clear
that notwithstanding the vehicle of
st
the 1 respondent was insured
with the 2nd respondent, the
insurance company is not liable to
indemnify the insured as we have
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
recorded a finding that it was not
involved in the accident.
Therefore, there is no third party
liability on the part of the
insurance company to pay
compensation to the claimants.
This amount is awarded in order to
see that in future such false
defences are not filed before
Court, judicial process is not
st
abused. Therefore, it is only the 1
respondent/owner who is liable to
pay the aforesaid amount. Ordered
accordingly.
13. Basing on the above citation though it is a beneficial
legislation, it is for the court to see that there is any abuse of
process or implication of vehicle to gain wrongfully. After
proper investigation PW.1 came to know about the number of
the vehicle as 8399 and the same is mentioned in IMV report
and charge sheet. Police recorded the statement of PW.1 under
Ex.P3 and Exs.P21 is the B extract of the insured vehicle. He
further admitted that he was in the hospital for 15 days. But,
he does not know whether he was in the hospital on
08.02.2007. There are variations in his evidence regarding the
fact when he went to the police station. Initially he said that 3
or 4 days after the accident he went to the police station. By
that time car was there and again he stated that he went after
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14753
MFA No. 4545 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4546 of 2016
HC-KAR
2 months and only on seeing the vehicle in the police station he
changed the vehicle number. The Tribunal rightly considered all
the aspects in detail and stated that the claimants have failed
to prove the involvement of the vehicle and dismissed the claim
petitions. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said
order.
In the result, there is no merits in the appeals and same
are dismissed, confirming the order of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
AKC
CT:NR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1