Motor Accident Victim Seeking Compensation Must Lodge Complaint In Time: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld an order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal which refused compensation to a claimant, observing that the possibility of planting or involving the offending vehicle in the alleged accident cannot be ruled out.A single judge, Justice P Sree Sudha dismissed the appeal stating, "the delay is not at all explained and injured not filed any certified copies...
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld an order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal which refused compensation to a claimant, observing that the possibility of planting or involving the offending vehicle in the alleged accident cannot be ruled out.
A single judge, Justice P Sree Sudha dismissed the appeal stating, "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."
The appellant had claimed that a biker dashed him while driving on wrong side of the road, leading to fracture injuries. He filed a claim petition seeking ₹10 lakh compensation, which came to be rejected.
In appeal, he argued that the Tribunal had erroneously stated there was no proper explanation by the appellant to condone the delay of 24 days in filing the complaint.
The insurance company opposed the appeal citing delay and argued that the police authority had planted the insured vehicle to claim the compensation wrongfully. It also questioned territorial jurisdiction of the appeal, stating that the appellant is resident of Maharashtra and the accident took place in Maharashtra.
The bench noted that there was an inordinate delay of 24 days in giving the complaint and no reasons were assigned for the same. Moreover, varied dates of accident were mentioned in the FIR, the spot panchanama and the chargesheet.
“There are so many discrepancies in the material documents regarding the date of accident, the witnesses simply stated that it was a mistake or oversight. Considering the above said aspects, the said explanation cannot be accepted,” it said.
The Court added, “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...In the present case, there is an inordinate delay of 24 days and it is not explained by the appellant properly, there are so many discrepancies in material documents. Therefore, it is a clear case of false implication of the vehicle and the Tribunal has rightly assessed the entire evidence on record and dismissed the award.”
Appearance: Advocate Sanganagouda V Biradar for Appellant.
Advocate Manjunath Mallayya Shetty for R2.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
Case Title: Suresh Vathar AND Siddaramma & ANR
Case No: MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200941 OF 2019