Karnataka High Court
Sri Subramani @ Subramanya vs Sri Avinash on 5 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30306
MFA No. 2321 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2321 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SUBRAMANI @ SUBRAMANYA
S/O LATE CHIDAMBARASABHAPATI PILAI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR VELU ELECTRICALS
PUMP HOUSE ROAD
SAKALESHPURA
PRESENTLY R/AT
SAKALESHPURA-HASSAN ROAD
VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION
HASSAN-573 201
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.J. ANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. SRI AVINASH
ANJALI M S/O DHARMESH
Location: High
Court of Karnataka MAJOR
BRIDGE NO.215, KSRTC BUS DRIVER
K.S.R.T.C. DEPOT
SAKALESHPURA
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION
K.S.R.T.C
CHIKKAMAGALURU
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-SERVED )
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30306
MFA No. 2321 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.07.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1858/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE AND MACT, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
This appeal is under Section 173 (1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the claimant aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 07.01.2020 passed by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge and M.A.C.T,
Hassan, in M.V.C.No.1858/2017 whereby the claim
petition filed by the appellant seeking compensation for
injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident was
dismissed. The dismissal is primarily predicated on the
Tribunal’s finding that, the appellant failed to prove the
very occurrence of the accident and the consequent
involvement of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:30306
MFA No. 2321 of 2020
HC-KAR
18-F-366. The Tribunal appears to have treated the
matter as one requiring strict proof akin to a criminal
prosecution and rejected the appellant’s case on grounds
such as delay in lodging the FIR, absence of
contemporaneous police investigation, minor
inconsistencies in hospital documentation, and the
supposed improbability of the incident, despite significant
medical evidence on the contrary.
2. The facts as laid out in the claim petition and
supported by evidence indicate that, on 23.12.2016, the
appellant, while riding his motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-46-A-0116 at Attihalli road, was involved in an
accident with a KSRTC bus allegedly driven in a rash and
negligent manner by respondent No. 1. It is asserted
that, the appellant, along with one Guruji, was thrown off
the vehicle upon collision, resulting in grievous injuries,
including fractures to multiple ribs and the right foot. The
appellant was first taken to the Government Hospital at
Sakleshpura and thereafter shifted to Yenepoya Hospital in
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:30306
MFA No. 2321 of 2020
HC-KAR
Mangaluru, where he was admitted and treated for
multiple days. Despite this, the tribunal disbelieved the
occurrence of the accident itself, largely relying on
procedural lapses and omissions by third parties, including
the delay in lodging the FIR and absence of police visits
during the initial treatment phase.
3. Heard the arguments of both sides on this
appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits
that, erroneously, the learned tribunal has dismissed the
claim petition filed by the petitioner. He submits that, the
very finding of the tribunal, that the said complaint was
filed at a belated stage, so also medical records are not
tallying with each other, is erroneous.
5. As against this submission, the counsel for the
respondent submits that, rightly, as the claimant has not
proved the accident itself, therefore, the tribunal has
dismissed the petition.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:30306
MFA No. 2321 of 2020
HC-KAR
6. In view of the rival submissions of both sides,
this Court finds that, the tribunal, in its judgment, placed
excessive reliance on the delay of over 3 months in filing
the police complaint. While delay in lodging an FIR can, in
some circumstances, cast a shadow on the claimant’s
case, it cannot be treated as conclusive proof of falsity,
especially in a claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is not governed by the
same evidentiary standards applicable in criminal trials. In
catena of decisions, including Kusum Lata v. Satbir,
reported in (2011) 3 SCC 646, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held that, “the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial
legislation and that the claims under it must be decided on
the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, not proof
beyond reasonable doubt”. The duty of the tribunal under
Section 168 of the Act is to determine “just
compensation”, which requires a purposive, liberal, and
practical approach to the evidence presented.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:30306
MFA No. 2321 of 2020
HC-KAR
7. What is most striking in the present case is the
tribunal’s disregard for Ex.P8, the Wound Certificate issued
by the Government Hospital at Sakleshpura on the date of
the accident. Ex.P8 records the injuries suffered by the
appellant and states that, the injuries were sustained in a
road traffic accident at approximately 02.30 p.m. on
23.12.2016 near Attihalli (Hongarala). The certificate
notes the presence of a swelling, and deformity in the
right ankle and blunt injury over the upper trunk on the
right side, injuries that are entirely inconsistent with the
mechanism of a vehicular collision. The nature, location,
and gravity of injuries recorded in Ex.P8 corroborate the
narrative of a two-wheeler rider being hit from the front or
side of a larger vehicle, like a bus.
8. The tribunal sought to undermine the credibility
of Ex. P8 by pointing out that, it did not mention the exact
time of medical examination and that the corresponding
OPD card, Ex.P15, lacked a printed serial number. This
Court is of the considered view that, these reasons are
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:30306
MFA No. 2321 of 2020
HC-KAR
wholly inadequate to discredit a medical certificate issued
by a Government Hospital and authenticated by attending
doctors. In most Government hospitals, especially in
smaller towns like Sakaleshpura, record – keeping
practices may be subject to various logistical and
administrative limitations. The absence of a serial
number in an OPD Card cannot ipso facto suggest
fabrication or falsity, particularly when the narrative in the
injury certificate, OPD card, and the discharge summaries
from Yenepoya Hospital (Exs. P10 and P12) consistently
reinforce the claim that, the appellant had indeed suffered
substantial physical trauma attributable to a motor
accident.
9. In this context, it is important to reiterate that,
Ex.P8 is not an isolated piece of evidence. It is
corroborated by the case sheet from Yenepoya Hospital,
marked as Ex. C1, which shows admission on the same
day of the alleged accident and records multiple fractures,
including a LISFRANCS variant fracture of the right foot
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:30306
MFA No. 2321 of 2020
HC-KAR
and fractures of the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ribs with lung
contusion. It is medically implausible for such injuries to
be self inflicted or staged. These injuries are high –
energy in nature and require significant force, as typically
seen in road traffic accidents. The diagnosis is not
subjective; it is based on clinical findings and radiological
investigations, which were further supported by X-rays
produced at Exs.C2 to C6.
10. The learned tribunal also erred in doubting the
appellant’s version solely on the ground that, the pillion
rider, Guruji, did not suffer any injuries, and his name did
not appear in the consent forms at Yenepoya Hospital.
The fact that the appellant’s son signed the consent form
is hardly surprising or suspicious. In emergencies,
hospitals often require a next of kin to execute such
documentation. A non-relative, such as a friend or a
passenger, may not even be legally competent to do so.
Drawing adverse inference from such procedural facts
reveals a misplaced approach to evidence appreciation.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:30306
MFA No. 2321 of 2020
HC-KAR
The Tribunal failed to consider the consistency between
the complaint, the medical records, and the evidence of
PW1 and PW2 all of which pointed to the same narrative;
that an accident occurred on 23.12.2016 involving a
KSRTC bus and that the appellant sustained injuries as a
result.
11. This Court further notes that, the police, after
investigation, registered an FIR and filed a charge sheet
against the KSRTC driver for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 337 of IPC and Sections 184 and 187
of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The tribunal dismissed
this charge sheet as being of no evidentiary value solely
because it was filed after some delay. However, there is
no finding that the FIR or the charge sheet was fabricated
or forged. In fact, the IMV reports were prepared and the
vehicle seizure mahazar was drawn. The delay in police
action, even if significant, cannot ipso facto discredit the
entire narrative, particularly when supported by
independent medical documentation.
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:30306
MFA No. 2321 of 2020
HC-KAR
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2018) 5 SCC
656 has held that, “where there is a delay in lodging the
FIR or registering the case, the Tribunal must examine
whether the delay has been properly explained and
whether the explanation is plausible”. The Court
emphasized that, a holistic view must be taken and not an
overly technical one. In the present case, the appellant
had explained the delay by stating that, he was under
treatment and also misled by the assurances of the driver,
who promised to bear the expenses and dissuaded the
appellant from lodging a complaint. This explanation is
not inherently improbable or concocted and is in fact borne
out by many real-life experiences of victims who rely on
such informal assurances, only to be let down. Therefore,
this Court is of the view that, the Tribunal erred both in
law and on facts in rejecting the claim petition. The
standard applicable in a motor accident claim is one of
preponderance of probabilities. When medical evidence
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:30306
MFA No. 2321 of 2020HC-KAR
such as Ex. P8 and other medical records clearly supports
the occurrence of injuries on the date and time alleged,
and when hospital records and expert testimony from a
treating doctor reinforce the same, the Tribunal ought not
to have brushed aside such substantive material on minor
procedural grounds. Accordingly, this Court holds that the
impugned judgment and award dated 07.01.2020 passed
in M.V.C. No. 1858/2017 deserves to be set aside.
13. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
07.01.2020 passed in M.V.C.
No.1858/2017 by the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge and M.A.C.T at
Hassan is set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted to the III Additional
District Judge and M.A.C.T., Hassan, for
reconsideration in accordance with law.
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:30306
MFA No. 2321 of 2020
HC-KAR
(iv) The Tribunal shall particularly examine the
case afresh with due regard to the medical
evidence, especially Ex.P8 and associated
records, and determine the entitlement of
the appellant to compensation.
(v) Both the parties shall be afforded an
opportunity to adduce any additional
evidence, if they so desire.
(vi) The remanded proceeding shall be
concluded expeditiously.
(vii) The parties to the petition shall appear
before the Tribunal on 19.08.2025 without
expecting any notice from it.
There shall be no orders to cost.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27