While allowing the appeals of the claimants who suffered in a motor accident, the Karnataka High Court has held that the failure on the part of the hospital authorities to give intimation to police should not affect the chances of the claimants getting compensated in motor accident claims.

The appeals before the High Court were filed against the order rendered by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum.

The Single Bench of Justice Chillakur Sumalatha held, “A perusal of Exhibit P7 - wound certificate and Exhibit P10 - wound certificate clearly goes to show a mention of ‘Road Traffic Accident (RTA)’. For reasons best known, the hospital authorities did not give intimation to police. Failure on their part to give intimation to police should not affect the chances of the claimants getting compensated in motor accident claims.”

Advocate Soubhagya Vakkund represented the Appellant while Advocate Suresh S. Gundi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The claimants (husband and wife) filed separate claim petitions projecting that, while they were proceeding on a motorcycle, another motorcycle which was driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, hit their motorcycle, due to which they fell down and sustained injuries. Both the claim petitions were dismissed by the Tribunal, giving a finding that they failed to discharge their burden that they were injured in a road traffic accident.

Arguments

It was the case of the appellant that the delay in lodging a complaint to police could not form a ground for dismissal of the claim petition.

The respondents argued that there was no intimation even from hospital authorities regarding the alleged accident and even the claimants did not choose to give the complaint to police immediately after the accident or soon thereafter.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the wound certificate showed a mention of ‘Road Traffic Accident (RTA)’.

Stating that law has not fixed any time limit for lodging a complaint to police, the Bench observed, “Whether delay in setting the law into motion is fatal or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Courts have to look whether the de facto complainant has utilized the time to give wings to his imagination, to wreck vengeance against his opponents, for discussions and deliberations, to settle scores or to prepare grounds for false claim.In case none of these exist and where the delay is due to genuine cause coupled sometimes with inability to approach police immediately, then such delay cannot come in the way of victim to get justice”

The Bench showed its disagreement with the findings of the Tribunal that the claim petitions were not maintainable. Setting aside the impugned orders, the Bench directed the Tribunal to restore both the cases on file and decide the matters afresh.

Cause Title: Shri Pandurang v. Durdundi Malagouda Patil (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D14638)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Soubhagya Vakkund, Y. Lakshmi

Respondent: Advocates Suresh S. Gundi

Click here to read/download Order



Karnataka High CourtJustice Chillakur Sumalatha

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.