- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:843 MFA No. 202629 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202629 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: KISHORE S/O GULABSAB CHAWAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE, R/O H.NO. 9-665, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, SHAHABAZAR, KALABURAGI-585 102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MAHADEV S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. REVANSIDDAPPA S/O RAJSHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND & NATURAL MOTHER SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. RAJSHEKAR NIGGADAGI, R/O H.NO. 9-394/1, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, PATWER GALLI, SHAHABAZAR, KALABURAGI-585 102. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., N.G. COMPLEX, OPP: MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, LUCYGRACE Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Date: 2025.02.12 10:43:54 - 0800 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:843 MFA No. 202629 of 2019 STATION ROAD, KALABURGI-585 104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VARUN PATIL, ADV., FOR R1; SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADV., FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI IN MVC NO.574/2016, VIDE ORDER DATED 01.10.2019, THEREBY. DIRECT THE APPELLNAT HEREIN TO PAY COMPENSATION OF RS.1,04,000/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH AND FOUR THOUSAND) ALONG WITH INTEREST. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle and learned counsels appearing for the respondents, respectively, the claimant and the Insurance Company. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 01.10.2019 passed in MVC No.574/2016 on the file of Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT at - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:843 MFA No. 202629 of 2019 Kalaburagi, (for short ‘Tribunal’), respondent No.1 before the Tribunal is before this Court in appeal. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. The factual matrix of the case as may be found from the pleadings is as below: a) On 23.06.2015 at about 6.15 p.m., when the petitioner was crossing road while returning from his School, a motorcycle bearing No.KA-32/S-9183 came in rash and negligent manner and collided against the petitioner. As a result, petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital Kalaburagi and he had spent huge amount for treatment. Hence, he filed claim petition before the Tribunal, contending that the petitioner aged about 12 years, was assisting his parents in milk vending and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and due to the injuries, there is a disability for him and as such, just compensation may be awarded to him. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:843 MFA No. 202629 of 2019 b) On being served with the notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statements. Respondent No.1, the owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle contended that the petition is false frivolous and fictitious, in fact, there is no such accident which had taken place and the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed. Inter alia, he also denied the averments made in the petition. c) Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company contended that the vehicle involved in the accident had no valid insurance as on the date of the incident and therefore, it has no liability to pay any compensation. d) On the basis of the above contentions, appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal. The mother of the petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked in evidence. Two witnesses were examined on his behalf as PWs.2 and 3. The official of respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and respondent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:843 MFA No. 202629 of 2019 No.1 was examined as RW2 and the copy of the Insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. e) After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held that the petitioner had sustained the injuries in the accident involving the motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 and as such, it assessed the compensation at Rs.1,04,000/- based on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.1 and held respondent No.1 liable to pay the compensation. Consequently, petition as against respondent No.2 - Insurance Company was dismissed. Aggrieved by which, respondent No.1 is before this Court in this appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for appellant- respondent No.1 contends that the Wound Certificate nowhere discloses the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner. He points that the FIR was registered with delay on 24.06.2015. In the said FIR, the date of the 1 (2014) 14 SCC 396 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:843 MFA No. 202629 of 2019 accident is mentioned at 23.06.2015. However, the Wound Certificate produced at Ex.P6 would show that accident had taken place on 22.06.2015. Therefore, there being a clear discrepancy in respect of the date of the accident, the vehicle of the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is also pointed out that in Ex.P6 - Wound Certificate the nature of the injury has not been described and the petitioner only rely on the Disability Certificate to show that there was an injury in the form of fracture of the lateral malleolus of the left leg. 6. The 3rd contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the petitioner does not mention anything that he had taken treatment in any private hospital and had got applied the POP slab. On the other hand, the evidence led by PW1 and the other documents show that the petitioner had approached the Government Hospital with POP and therefore it is a clear indication that the vehicle belonging to the appellant was not at all involved in the accident. Hence, he submits that there - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:843 MFA No. 202629 of 2019 being a discrepancy in the date of the accident the petition should have been dismissed by the Tribunal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a boy aged about 12 years and he is from poor family of the society. It is contended that the statement of the petitioner, aged 12 years, was recorded by the Police while he was in the hospital on 24.06.2015. The Ex.P2-complaint would clearly indicate the same. 8. He also submits that the incident had taken place at 6.15 p.m. on 22.06.2015 and the complaint was lodged on 24.06.2015 and he was admitted to the hospital on 24.06.2015 morning. Therefore, he contends that when a boy aged about 12 years had given a statement, except the Wound Certificate which says that the accident had taken place on the 22.06.2015, there is nothing else on record to show that it was on 22.06.2015. Therefore, a wrong mention of the date in Ex.P6 - Wound Certificate cannot be sufficient enough to non-suit the petitioner. In - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:843 MFA No. 202629 of 2019 this regard, he points out that in the cross-examination of the RW1 he has admitted the accident and it was due to his fault, hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 9. A careful perusal of the evidence available on record would show that the PW1, who happens to be the mother of the petitioner, was not an eyewitness of the incident, however, she states that the accident took place on 23.06.2015 at 6.15 p.m. In the cross-examination she has clarified that they have not given any information to the Doctor that accident had taken place on 22.06.2015. She also denies that POP slab was applied to the leg of the petitioner. Therefore, the cross-examination of PW1 is not of any help to the appellant herein. 10. A perusal of Ex.P2-complaint to the police would show that it is a statement recorded by the police while the petitioner was in the hospital. It was recorded on 24.06.2015 at 2:00 p.m. The police constable had visited the hospital on being informed of registration of MLC case. The police investigated the matter and ultimately filed the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:843 MFA No. 202629 of 2019 charge sheet as per Ex.P3. The Wound Certificate at Ex.P6 show that the petitioner was first seen in the District Hospital on 24.06.2015 at 11.40 a.m. The history of the incident is mentioned as RTA on 22.06.2015. It is also mentioned that there was a plaster of paris slab present over ankle on the left side which was put at a private hospital. Therefore, no opinion could be given, since the patient went against the medical advice. The case sheet of the hospital at Ex.P8 would show that while admitting, it was stated that RTA had taken place two days back. It is worth to note that exhibit P9, which is the OPD record of the District Hospital dated 23.06.2015 shows that there was fracture of the left leg. It is worth to note that POP slab was advised to the petitioner. However, on the next day, the patient wanted to make an MLC case and therefore, he was referred to casualty. This document would be of great importance to establish that as mentioned in the pleadings, the petitioner had approached the Government Hospital itself. However, he had not disclosed that it was a RTA. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:843 MFA No. 202629 of 2019 11. The cross-examination of RW.2, the appellant herein, would show that he denies that there was an accident. However in the cross-examination, when he was confronted with the criminal case, he admits that he pleaded guilty. In his examination-in-chief, he explains his pleading guilty by saying that one of the police officer convinced him that it is a matter of just paying Rs.500/- penalty and otherwise, it would amount to rivalry against the police and the same will be kept in the mind of the police and they may take revenge and that may affect his business. This explanation by the RW.2 cannot be accepted, since it goes against a document which he has admitted. Moreover, the fact that he admitted his guilt before the Court of law cannot be obviated by saying that it was under the coercion or under pressure. Moreover, in the cross-examination, he admits that the accident occurred due to his negligence only. This being the evidence of the appellant herein, the explanation of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated cannot be accepted. The conduct of the appellant is also worth to be - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:843 MFA No. 202629 of 2019 noted. It may be seen that his vehicle was not having the cover of an insurance policy, but the insurance policy was got renewed only after three days of the alleged accident. Hence, this Court do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. 12. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE SBS,LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT : AK