- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844 MFA No. 201862 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201862 OF 2019 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. HANAMANT S/O MAHADEV JADHAV, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. VARSHARANI D/O HANAMANT JADHAV, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 3. ARAVINDKUMAR S/O HANAMANT JADHAV, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. SANIDEV S/O HANAMANT JADHAV, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, ALL ARE R/O: TIKOTA, TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR – 586 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHIVASHANKAR H.MANUR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844 MFA No. 201862 of 2019 AND: 1. SINDHUTAI W/O DAGADU MALI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER OF THE TRAX CRUISER BEARING NO.MH-10/AG-793, R/O: FULRAM NIVAS, KENCHARAJ GALLI, JATH, TQ: JATH, DIST: SANGLI – 416 404. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, BIDARI COMPLEX, S.S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR – 586 101. ITS POLICY NO.162600/31/2008/5291 VALID UP TO 11.03.2008 TO 10.03.2009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED BUT UN-REPRESENTED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.04.2019, PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VIJAYAPURA, IN M.V.C.NO.2007/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844 MFA No. 201862 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 25.04.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vijayapura (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.2007/2014, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Shivashankar H.Manur, learned counsel for appellants submitted appeal was by claimants challenging dismissal of claim petition. It was submitted on 24.02.2009 at 10.00 a.m., Smt.Sulochana, a Teacher, aged 40 years was riding her Scooty on Bagewadi – Kumbhari road, when driver of Cruiser bearing Reg.no.MH-10/AG-793 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against Scooty from opposite direction. It was submitted Smt.Sulochana died on the spot. However, driver of offending vehicle did not stop at accident spot. Police were able to trace offending vehicle after 12 days and filed charge-sheet. In claim petition filed by husband and children of deceased – Smt.Sulochana, specific allegation was made that her death due to accident caused by vehicle belonging to respondent no.1. Despite same, respondent no.1 did not contest claim petition. Only Insurer opposed claim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844 MFA No. 201862 of 2019 petition alleging that deceased had died due to her own negligence that, eye witnesses and police had colluded and registered false case against driver of Cruiser and there was false implication of insured vehicle etc., 3. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 and Balkrishna Kadam (eye witness) were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 marked. Official of Insurer was examined as RW.1 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 were got marked. On consideration, Tribunal dismissed claim petition. Aggrieved, claimant was in appeal. 4. It was submitted main reason assigned by Tribunal for dismissal was PW2 examined as eye witness before Tribunal had turned hostile and supported accused in criminal case. It also noted that Balasaheb Appasaheb Patil, earliest person to have seen deceased at accident spot had informed claimant no.1, his brother as well as two others that accident was caused by a Cruiser vehicle. It observed, same was suppressed by claimants. It was submitted statement recorded by police in investigation would not constitute evidence or proof of contents - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844 MFA No. 201862 of 2019 of statement and therefore dismissal of claim petition was contrary to law. 5. On other hand, Sri Sudarshan M., learned counsel for respondent – Insurer sought to oppose appeal. It was submitted informant had mentioned that accident was caused by Cruiser vehicle. It was submitted statement of complainant mentioned about shifting of deceased to hospital for treatment in a Cruiser vehicle. It was submitted claimants in collusion with police had sought to implicate vehicle which was used for transportation of deceased to hospital for treatment. On noting same, Tribunal had dismissed claim petition. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award. 7. This appeal is by claimant questioning dismissal of claim petition by Tribunal. Therefore, only point that would arise for consideration is – “Whether dismissal of claim petition by Tribunal would be justified ?” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844 MFA No. 201862 of 2019 8. Claim petition was filed alleging that on 24.02.2009 when deceased was riding her Scooty at 10.00 a.m., on Bagewadi –Kumbhari road, driver of Cruiser vehicle belonging to respondent no.1 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against Scooty, causing accident, resulting in death of rider of Scooty – Smt.Sulochana. As vehicle was insured with respondent no.2, claimants were entitled for compensation from owner/insurer of Cruiser. 9. Petition was opposed by Insurer specifically contending false implication of insured vehicle. To establish accident, claimants relied on prosecution records. While claimants relied on charge-sheet – Ex.P.7 filed after completion of investigation, Insurer relied report of its Investigator, statements of Balasaheb Appasaheb Patil and Balakrishna Kadam which indicated that informant was aware about accident having been caused by driver of Cruiser vehicle of Jath village belonging to Mali. There is also mention about he informing same to Rajaram Patil and to Ashok Jadav – brother- in-law of deceased. It is also seen that Balasaheb had mentioned that it was light coloured Cruiser vehicle. Said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844 MFA No. 201862 of 2019 information was available as on date of accident itself. Yet FIR was registered only on 08.03.2009 by mentioning offending vehicle to be a green coloured Cruiser vehicle belonging to respondent no.1 – Sindhutai Dagadu Mali of Jath Village. 10. While passing impugned award, Tribunal considered said material and arrived at conclusion that claim petition was filed falsely implicating insured vehicle. When police investigation records mentioned receipt of information about vehicle belonging to respondent no.1 had caused accident and same was informed to relative of deceased, delay of 12 days in registration of FIR substantiated doubt. It also noted, immediately after accident, Sri Balasaheb went near accident spot, therefore Cruiser vehicle belonging to Mali was secured to transport victim to hospital. Apparently, Cruiser vehicle belonging to Mali is implicated. In absence of explanation by claimants about above discrepancies, Tribunal would be justified in coming to conclusion about false implication of insured vehicle. Conclusion on appreciation of material cannot be stated to be contrary to record or perverse. Hence, point for consideration is answered in negative. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844 MFA No. 201862 of 2019 11. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE sn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 Ct: Vk