Victim Has To Give Complaint In Time & Prove Involvement Of Vehicle In Motor Accident Case: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court was considering an appeal filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing a claim petition.
While dismissing an appeal in a case of motor accident where there was a delay of 24 days in filing the complaint, the Karnataka High Court has held that the injured/victim has to prove that he met with an accident and he has to give the complaint in time. The High Court also held that it is for him to prove the involvement of the vehicle.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing a claim petition.
Referring to the judgment in Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another (2009), the Single Bench of Justice P Sree Sudha held, “Hence, in view of the above said extracted citation, it is for the appellant to prove that he met with an accident and he has to give the complaint in time and basing on the investigation, the chargesheet is to be filed. Accordingly, it is for him to prove the involvement of the vehicle and the existence of the policy as on the date of accident.”
Advocate Sanganagouda V Biradar represented the Appellant while Advocate Manjunath Mallayya Shetty represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case dates back to the year 2013 when a motorcycle rider driving in high speed negligently dashed to the appellant. The appellant sustained fracture injuries and was immediately admitted to a Hospital for treatment. The injured/claimant filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs 10,00,000. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the said award, the appeal came to be filed before the High Court on the ground that the Tribunal erroneously stated there was no proper explanation to condone the delay of 24 days in filing the complaint.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the appellant met with an accident on December 22, 2013, but the complaint was given on January 15, 2014 and there was an inordinate delay of 24 days. It was further noticed that no reasons were assigned for the said delay in giving the complaint. The Bench found many discrepancies in the material documents regarding the date of the accident, and the witnesses simply stated that it was a mistake or oversight. The Bench refused to accept such an explanation.
The Bench noted, “Further, the Motor vehicle (MV) report of the offending vehicle is not produced before the Court and no explanation is given for the same. The Tribunal has rightly contended that, if the delay in filing the complaint is explained properly, then only it is acceptable one, hence, it is not fatal to the case of the appellant. In this case, the delay is not at all explained and injured not filed any certified copies of FIR complaint, spot panchanama, MV report, injury certificate and the charge sheet before the Court. As such, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the possibility of planting or involving the motorcycle No.MH-13-BK-7672 cannot be ruled out and accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition.”
Considering the fact that there was an inordinate delay of 24 days, which was not explained by the appellant properly, and there were many discrepancies in the material documents, the Bench held that the matter was a clear case of false implication of the vehicle. As per the Bench, the Tribunal had rightly assessed the entire evidence on record and dismissed the award.
Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Suresh v. Siddarama (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-K:6580)