False Implication of Insured Vehicles and the Burden on Claimants in Motor Accident Claims: Commentary on Suresh S/o Mahadev Vathar v. Siddarama & Anr. (Karnataka High Court, 06.11.2025)

False Implication of Insured Vehicles and the Burden on Claimants in Motor Accident Claims: Commentary on Suresh S/o Mahadev Vathar v. Siddarama & Anr. (Karnataka High Court, 06 November 2025)

1. Introduction

The decision of the Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench, in Suresh S/o Mahadev Vathar v. Siddarama & Anr., MFA No. 200941 of 2019, decided on 6 November 2025 by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice P. Sree Sudha, is a significant reaffirmation of a strict judicial approach towards suspected fraudulent motor accident claims, particularly where there is unexplained delay in lodging the complaint and serious inconsistencies in the basic documentary record (dates, MLC numbers, etc.).

The appeal arose from a dismissal of a claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT-III), Vijayapura in MVC No. 742/2014. The appellant, Suresh, an auto-rickshaw owner-cum-driver, claimed to have sustained fracture injuries in a road traffic accident caused by a rash and negligent motorcycle rider. The Tribunal found the claim untrustworthy and dismissed it, holding that the alleged involvement of the insured motorcycle appeared to be a false implication. The High Court has now confirmed that dismissal.

The judgment does not introduce a wholly new principle of law, but it powerfully applies and reiterates the earlier Karnataka High Court decision in Veerappa & Anr. v. Siddappa & Anr., (2009) 1 KACJ 500, emphasising:

  • the heavy onus on a claimant to establish the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the insured vehicle;
  • the need to explain any substantial delay in lodging the complaint;
  • the judiciary’s duty to combat fraudulent or collusive motor accident claims; and
  • the principle that an insurer cannot be made liable where the insured vehicle is found not to have been involved in the accident.

2. Factual Background and Procedural History

2.1 Parties

  • Appellant / Claimant: Suresh s/o Mahadev Vathar, 47 years, owner-cum-driver of an auto-rickshaw, resident of Jumanal, Taluk & District Vijayapura, Karnataka.
  • Respondent No. 1: Siddarama s/o Dundappa Varvate, 44 years, businessman, resident of Nadani, South Solapur, District Solapur, Maharashtra – the alleged owner (and/or person connected with) the offending motorcycle.
  • Respondent No. 2: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the allegedly offending motorcycle.

2.2 Alleged Accident and Claim

According to the appellant:

  • On 22.12.2013 at about 7:00 p.m., near Vaishnavi Petrol Pump on NH-13, a motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-13-BK-7672 came at high speed, from the wrong side, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him.
  • He sustained fracture injuries and was admitted to Wachche Hospital, Solapur, for treatment.
  • He filed a claim petition before the MACT-III, Vijayapura in MVC No. 742/2014, seeking compensation of ₹10,00,000 under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2.3 Defence of the Insurance Company

The insurer (Respondent No. 2) raised a multi-pronged defence:

  • Policy defence: It contended that the policy was not in force as on the date of the alleged accident and that the owner had not intimated the accident.
  • Jurisdictional objection: It argued that the MACT at Vijayapura lacked jurisdiction, as the accident allegedly took place in Maharashtra and the appellant was said to be a resident of Maharashtra (though the cause-title shows a Karnataka address).
  • Fraud/Collusion defence: It alleged collusion between the appellant, the owner of the motorcycle, and the police, involving:
    • Delay of 24 days in lodging the complaint/FIR;
    • Inconsistent MLC numbers – FIR registered as per MLC No. 699/2014, while the injury certificate shows MLC No. 16;
    • Contradictory dates of accident spread across various documents (complaint, spot panchanama, charge sheet, case sheet);
    • Non-production of the Motor Vehicle (MV) Inspector’s report.
  • Licence defence: The rider of the motorcycle allegedly did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

2.4 Tribunal’s Decision (MVC No. 742/2014)

The Tribunal:

  • Recorded evidence of PW1 to PW3 for the claimant with Exhibits P1 to P71, and RW1, RW2 for the insurer with Exhibit R1; and examined a Court Witness (CW1) with Exhibit C1.
  • Found serious discrepancies in the core documents concerning:
    • Date of accident;
    • MLC number;
    • Delay in lodging FIR (24 days);
    • Non-production of certified copies and MV report.
  • Held that the possibility of “planting” or falsely involving the motorcycle No. MH-13-BK-7672 in the accident could not be ruled out.
  • Concluded that the claimant failed to prove the occurrence of the accident as alleged and the involvement of the insured vehicle.
  • Dismissed the claim petition, instead of awarding any compensation.

2.5 Appeal Before the High Court (MFA No. 200941/2019)

Invoking Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant appealed to the High Court, seeking:

  • Setting aside of the Tribunal’s judgment and award dated 26.09.2018; and
  • Grant of “reasonable” compensation; or, in the alternative,
  • Remand of the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh trial, with an opportunity to lead further evidence.

The High Court heard both sides and reserved judgment on 14.10.2025. On 06.11.2025, it delivered a reserved (“CAV”) judgment, ultimately dismissing the appeal and confirming the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim.

3. Summary of the Judgment

The Karnataka High Court upheld the Tribunal’s findings and dismissed the appeal with the following essential conclusions:

  • The complaint regarding the alleged accident was lodged on 15.01.2014, 24 days after the purported date of accident (22.12.2013), and the delay was not explained at all by the claimant.
  • There were multiple, irreconcilable inconsistencies in key documents:
    • MLC number referred to in the complaint (MLC No. 699/2014) did not match the number in the injury certificate (MLC No. 16).
    • The date of accident appeared differently in various documents:
      • Complaint: 23.01.2013;
      • Spot panchanama (Ex.P2): 03.01.2014;
      • Charge sheet (Ex.P65): 22.12.2014;
      • Case sheet: 22.12.2013.
  • The explanations by witnesses (e.g., that the wrong dates or MLC numbers were “mistakes” or due to “oversight”) were held unacceptable in view of the gravity and number of discrepancies.
  • Important supporting documents such as:
    • Certified copy of FIR;
    • Copy of the complaint actually registered;
    • Spot panchanama (in certified form);
    • Motor Vehicle Inspector’s (MV) report;
    • Charge sheet;
    were either not properly produced or not produced at all.
  • In such circumstances, the High Court agreed with the Tribunal that:
    • The involvement of motorcycle No. MH-13-BK-7672 was not established; and
    • There was a clear case of false implication of the insured vehicle.
  • Relying on Veerappa & Anr. v. Siddappa & Anr., the Court stressed that:
    • Courts must be vigilant against the growing phenomenon of fraudulent motor accident claims, fuelled by an “unholy alliance” between certain police officers, doctors, lawyers, and sometimes insurers.
    • It is the claimant’s responsibility to prove:
      • That an accident in fact occurred;
      • That the particular vehicle was involved; and
      • That a valid policy covered the vehicle on the date of accident.
  • Finding no perversity or error in the Tribunal’s appreciation of evidence, the High Court refused to interfere and also refused to remand the case for fresh evidence.
  • The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim was confirmed.

4. Detailed Analysis

4.1 Issues Before the High Court

Though the judgment does not expressly list “issues” framed for determination, the core questions implicit in the Court’s reasoning were:

  • Issue 1: Whether the appellant had proved, on the basis of reliable and consistent evidence, that the alleged accident of 22.12.2013 actually occurred as pleaded and that motorcycle No. MH-13-BK-7672 was involved.
  • Issue 2: Whether the 24-day unexplained delay in filing the complaint, and the serious discrepancies in MLC numbers and accident dates, could be brushed aside as mere clerical errors or were fatal to the claim.
  • Issue 3: Whether, in light of the evidence and the principles laid down in Veerappa, the claim appeared to be a case of false implication of an insured vehicle.
  • Issue 4: Whether the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction under Section 173(1) of the MV Act, should interfere with the factual findings of the Tribunal or remand the case for fresh evidence.

4.2 Examination of Evidence and Factual Inconsistencies

4.2.1 The 24-Day Delay in Lodging the Complaint

The accident was said to have occurred on 22.12.2013. The complaint (Ex.P1) was lodged only on 15.01.2014, a delay of 24 days. The Court underscores two points:

  • In motor accident cases, some delay is understandable—especially where immediate medical attention is required—but substantial delay must be explained with cogent reasons.
  • In the present case, no explanation at all was offered for this delay, which was especially suspicious when coupled with other irregularities.

The Tribunal had already observed that unexplained delay, per se, could be fatal where it raises doubts about the very occurrence of the alleged accident and the involvement of a particular vehicle. The High Court explicitly endorses this view.

4.2.2 MLC Number Mismatch

The Medical Legal Case (MLC) number is a crucial link between medical records and criminal/civil proceedings:

  • The complaint referred to MLC No. 699/2014.
  • The injury certificate (Ex.P3) instead showed MLC No. 16.

PW3 (a witness from the hospital side) admitted in cross-examination that MLC No. 16 was not for the year 2013, adding to the suspicion that the MLC record being relied on did not actually correspond to the accident alleged in the claim petition.

The Court notes that CW1, a Head Constable, claimed he had registered the case as per MLC No. 699/2014, yet the copy of the exact complaint/FIR connected to that MLC was never placed on record. This omission further weakened the claimant’s case.

4.2.3 Contradictory Dates of Accident

Perhaps the most damaging aspect to the claimant’s case was the inconsistent narration of the accident date:

  • Pleadings / general case: Accident on 22.12.2013.
  • Complaint (FIR) – Ex.P1: Accident date mentioned as 23.01.2013.
  • Spot panchanama – Ex.P2: Accident date shown as 03.01.2014.
  • Charge sheet – Ex.P65: Accident date shown as 22.12.2014.
  • Case sheet (hospital record): Accident date shown as 22.12.2013.

PW3 attempted to explain these as mere “mistakes” or “oversight.” The Court, however, was not persuaded. Accident date is a foundational fact and the heart of the entire claim. Multiple conflicting dates across core legal and medical documents could not reasonably be treated as trivial typographical errors.

The High Court categorically held that such explanations cannot be accepted, and when considered along with the unexplained delay and MLC inconsistency, they point to a serious doubt about:

  • whether the accident occurred as alleged; and
  • whether motorcycle No. MH-13-BK-7672 was genuinely involved.

4.2.4 Non-Production of the MV Report and Other Certified Documents

The Court also places weight on the non-production of essential corroborative material:

  • No Motor Vehicle Inspector’s (MV) report was produced to show the nature and extent of damage to the allegedly offending motorcycle and to correlate that damage with the injuries alleged.
  • Certified copies of the FIR, complaint, spot panchanama, injury certificate, and charge sheet were not properly filed.

In genuine accident claims, such documents are ordinarily available and produced without difficulty. Their absence, particularly when the claimant is seeking to fix liability on an insured vehicle and an insurer, added to the Court’s suspicion that the claim was concocted or that the particular insured vehicle was falsely substituted for the actual vehicle.

4.3 Application of the Precedent in Veerappa & Anr. v. Siddappa & Anr.

4.3.1 The Principle Laid Down in Veerappa

The High Court extensively quoted from and relied on its earlier decision in Veerappa & Anr. v. Siddappa & Anr., (2009) 1 KACJ 500. In that case, the Court had observed:

“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 trend of unholy alliance among the police, the doctors, the lawyers and sometimes even the Insurance Company, to siphon out the public money, and make an unlawful gain is fast emerging… This is a dangerous trend, if unchecked would undermine the judicial process… Courts… have to balance the interest of these accident victims and their legal heirs on one side, by giving them just compensation at the earliest… and on the other hand, to see that the very process is not abused and exploited by a handful of persons…”

And further:

“Notwithstanding the vehicle of the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured as we have 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… It is only the 1st respondent/owner who is liable to pay…”

The key doctrines from Veerappa are:

  • Court’s duty to prevent abuse of motor accident claim jurisdiction.
  • Readiness to brand clearly fabricated or collusive claims as abuse of process.
  • If a vehicle is found not involved in an accident, the insurer bears no liability despite existence of a policy.
  • In extreme cases, even an owner may be saddled with liability (or costs) to discourage false defences or false claims.

4.3.2 How Veerappa Informed the Present Decision

In Suresh v. Siddarama, the Court did not merely cite Veerappa; it used it as the normative framework to assess the evidence:

  • The Court reiterated that, in the context of growing fraudulent claims, Judges must be cautious and not mechanically accept every motor accident claim, particularly where facts are clouded by delay and contradictions.
  • Applying Veerappa, the Court emphasised that it is “for the appellant to prove”:
    • that he met with an accident;
    • that he lodged a complaint in time, or at least gave a satisfactory explanation for delay;
    • that investigation and charge sheet properly established the vehicle’s involvement; and
    • that a valid policy existed for that vehicle on the relevant date.
  • Finding that in the present case:
    • there was an inordinate, unexplained delay of 24 days in filing the complaint;
    • there were numerous discrepancies in the basic documents;
    the Court concluded that this is “a clear case of false implication of the vehicle.” This language echoes the strong stance in Veerappa.
  • While Veerappa involved the Court still awarding an amount (saddling only the owner with liability to deter false defences), in the present case the High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s choice to dismiss the claim in toto, since even the occurrence of the accident in the pleaded manner was not satisfactorily proved.

4.4 Legal Reasoning: Burden of Proof, Standard of Proof, and Appellate Deference

4.4.1 Burden and Standard of Proof in MACT Proceedings

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal proceedings are civil in nature, and the standard of proof is typically preponderance of probabilities, not “beyond reasonable doubt” as in criminal cases. However:

  • The initial burden lies on the claimant to establish the basic facts:
    • that an accident took place at a specified place and time;
    • that a specified vehicle was involved and that it was being driven rashly and negligently;
    • that the claimant suffered injuries or death as a result; and
    • that the vehicle was insured on that date.
  • Once this prima facie case is established by consistent documentary and oral evidence, the burden shifts to the insurance company to prove policy defences (e.g., no valid licence, breach of policy conditions, etc.).

In Suresh v. Siddarama, the Court essentially held that the claimant had not discharged the basic initial burden: the very occurrence of the accident in the manner alleged and the involvement of the particular motorcycle remained in serious doubt.

4.4.2 Role of Delay and Documentary Contradictions

Delay in lodging the FIR/complaint is not automatically fatal in motor accident cases; courts often show flexibility. However:

  • When the delay is substantial (24 days here);
  • When it is wholly unexplained by either medical exigency, illiteracy, or other valid circumstances; and
  • When there are serious contradictions in basic documents (like date of accident and MLC number),

then the delay becomes a serious factor in assessing credibility. In this judgment, delay and contradictions are not treated in isolation; rather, their cumulative effect leads the Court to suspect fabrication or manipulation.

4.4.3 Appellate Interference under Section 173(1) MV Act

The claimant had not only sought reversal of the dismissal but, in the alternative, a remand for fresh evidence. The High Court implicitly rejected this by holding that:

  • The Tribunal had already conducted a proper appreciation of the available evidence.
  • There was no apparent perversity, misreading, or ignoring of material evidence justifying interference.
  • Allowing remand merely to “fill in the gaps” or rectify lapses in evidence would encourage negligent or manipulative litigants and undermine finality.

Thus, the ruling underscores a general principle: an appellate court under Section 173(1) will not ordinarily disturb the factual findings of a Tribunal where those findings are based on a reasonable appraisal of the evidence on record, and where no substantial question of law or procedural irregularity is shown.

4.5 Impact and Significance

4.5.1 Impact on Future Motor Accident Claims

This judgment, read with Veerappa, strengthens a clear trend in Karnataka:

  • Stricter scrutiny of claims involving:
    • late FIRs or complaints;
    • missing or uncertified core documents (FIR, panchanama, MV report, MLC);
    • inconsistent accident dates or MLC numbers; and
    • suspicions of “planting” an insured vehicle.
  • Claimants and their counsel will need to be more diligent in:
    • promptly lodging complaints or providing a convincing explanation for delay;
    • securing and filing certified copies of FIR, complaint, panchanama, case sheet, MLC, MV report and charge sheet;
    • ensuring internal consistency among all documents.
  • Insurers are encouraged to:
    • actively investigate doubtful claims;
    • plead and prove instances of collusion or false implication; and
    • invoke precedents like Veerappa and the present case to contest liability where vehicle involvement is dubious.

4.5.2 Balancing Protection of Genuine Victims and Prevention of Abuse

A potential concern with such strict scrutiny is the risk that some genuine victims may lose compensation due to lapses in documentation or delays which they are unable to explain properly (e.g., due to poverty, illiteracy, or lack of access to legal assistance). The High Court, by aligning with Veerappa, indicates that:

  • While the legislative object of the Motor Vehicles Act is to grant just compensation to accident victims swiftly,
  • That objective cannot override the need to prevent abuse of judicial process by fraudulent claims.

The message is clear: the judiciary will strive to protect genuine victims but will not permit the MACT to become a vehicle for siphoning public funds or insurer funds through fabricated or collusive claims.

4.5.3 Effect on the Doctrine of Insurer’s Liability

By reaffirming that an insurer cannot be made liable if its vehicle is found not involved in the accident, the judgment strengthens:

  • The principle of causal nexus: there must be a real connection between the accident and the insured vehicle for the insurer’s liability to arise.
  • The concept that insurance is not a general welfare fund, but a contract-based indemnity limited to losses causally linked to the insured vehicle and risks covered by the policy.

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

5.1 Key Terms and Concepts

  • MACT (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal): A special tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to adjudicate claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicle accidents. Proceedings are relatively summary and intended to be speedy and victim-friendly.
  • MLC (Medico-Legal Case) Number: Hospitals assign an MLC number when an injury case has legal implications (e.g., accident, assault). This number helps link medical records with police records and court proceedings. Consistency of this number across documents is important to ensure that the same incident is being referred to.
  • FIR (First Information Report): The first report made to the police about the commission of a cognizable offence (such as causing grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving). It is a foundational document in both criminal and related civil/MACT proceedings.
  • Spot Panchanama: A contemporaneous description and sketch of the scene of accident prepared by the police in the presence of witnesses (panchas), recording physical evidence such as road position, vehicle location, skid marks, etc.
  • MV Inspector’s Report (MV Report): A report prepared by the Motor Vehicle Inspector (or similar authority) examining the damaged vehicles to document the nature and extent of damage, and sometimes opining whether the damage is consistent with the alleged manner of accident.
  • Charge Sheet: A final report filed by police (usually under Section 173 CrPC) after investigation, stating whether sufficient evidence exists to prosecute the accused for specified offences (e.g., Sections 279, 338 IPC, etc.). In MACT cases, the charge sheet is often used as corroborative evidence of accident and vehicle involvement.
  • False Implication / Planting of Vehicle: A fraudulent practice whereby a vehicle that was not involved in an accident—often one that is properly insured—is shown in police and court records as the offending vehicle, in order to obtain compensation from the insurer. Sometimes this is done when the actual offending vehicle is uninsured or untraceable.
  • Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Provides for appeals to the High Court against the award of a Claims Tribunal. The appeal is usually limited to questions of law or substantial errors in appreciation of evidence; the High Court is not meant to re-try the case fully unless there is clear perversity or illegality.
  • CAV Judgment (Curia Advisari Vult): A Latin expression meaning “the court wishes to be advised.” When a matter is heard and the court reserves judgment, later pronouncing a written decision, it is often referred to as a CAV judgment.

6. Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s decision in Suresh S/o Mahadev Vathar v. Siddarama & Anr. serves as a strong reaffirmation of judicial vigilance against fraudulent motor accident claims. By upholding the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim, the Court:

  • Reiterated that claimants bear the primary burden of proving the occurrence of the accident, the involvement of the particular vehicle, and the existence of a valid insurance policy.
  • Emphasised that unexplained delay in lodging complaints, coupled with inconsistent core documents (MLC numbers, accident dates, etc.), can justify treating a claim as fabricated or as involving a falsely implicated vehicle.
  • Applied and reinforced the principles from Veerappa & Anr. v. Siddappa & Anr., stressing the courts’ duty to prevent abuse of the MACT process by “unscrupulous” elements.
  • Confirmed that an insurer cannot be held liable where the insured vehicle’s involvement in the accident is not satisfactorily established, thereby safeguarding the contractual and causal foundations of insurance liability.
  • Signalled that appellate courts under Section 173(1) will not ordinarily interfere with a Tribunal’s reasoned factual findings or grant remand merely to permit a party to repair evidentiary defects.

In the broader legal context, this judgment contributes to a growing body of case law that seeks to strike a delicate balance: ensuring that genuinely injured victims receive just compensation swiftly, while firmly closing the doors to fabricated, collusive, or opportunistic claims that undermine public confidence in the justice system and unjustly burden insurers and the exchequer.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Karnataka High Court

Judge(s)

P SREE SUDHA

Advocates

SANGANAGOUDA V BIRADAR

Comments