- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3082 MFA No. 200026 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200026 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, HERALAGI BUILDING, BEHIND SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, VIJAYAPURA. (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, BILGUNDI COMPLEX, STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KAMALABAI W/O SHIVANAGOUDA MALIPTAIL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. GIRIMALLAPPAGOUDA S/O SHIVANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 3. SIDDANAGOUDA S/O SHIVANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: DIPLOMA STUDENT, ALL ARE R/O. MALLI, TQ: JEWARGI, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 101. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3082 MFA No. 200026 of 2021 4. THE SECRETARY, APMC, SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 128. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.02.2020 IN M.V.C.NO.1668/2016 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.IV AT VIJAYAPURA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 24.02.2020 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.IV, Vijayapura, (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.1668/2016, this appeal is filed. 2. Smt.Preetipatil Melkundi, leaned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by Insurer challenging award passed by Tribunal, fastening liability on Insurer due to false implication of insured vehicle, even though it was not offending vehicle in accident. It was submitted that on 16.10.2015 at about 18.30 hours when deceased was riding his - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3082 MFA No. 200026 of 2021 motorcycle bearing Reg.no.KA-17/S-927 on Yankanchi Bypass in Sindagi, on Vijayapura-Kalaburagi road, jeep bearing Reg.no.KA-28/N-3073 (insured with appellant) came from Kalaburagi side in high speed and dashed against motorcycle, causing accident and resulting in death of deceased – Ninganagouda. It was submitted that insured vehicle namely jeep was parked by side of road and was not in motion at time of accident. A false narrative was given that accident was caused by jeep, whereas true fact was that accident was caused by an unknown tipper, since it could not be traced, claimants had falsely implicated insured vehicle for purpose of claim. It was submitted, PW-2, examined as eyewitness by claimants was not cited as a witness in criminal prosecution and Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report clearly indicated damages sustained by jeep on its right side and right rear side, which is supported by charge sheet filed by police after investigation that accident occurred when a tipper dashed against motorcycle of deceased causing his death and thereafter, it brushed against right side of insured jeep. Therefore, claim petition filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act against insured jeep would not sustain and sought for allowing appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3082 MFA No. 200026 of 2021 3. On other hand, Sri Sanganabasava B Patil, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 sought to oppose petition. It was submitted that accident had occurred in manner asserted by claimants in claim petition. Though, accident was caused by jeep belonging to APMC and insured with appellant, APMC had sought to escape its liability by falsely implicating unknown tipper. It was submitted that accident was witnessed by several persons, including PW-2 - eyewitness. Both in deposition of PW-2 and pleadings it was asserted that accident was caused by jeep when deceased attempted to cross Kalaburgi - Vijayapura Road at a cross intersection. Jeep’s driver failed to exercise due caution, dashing against motorcycle. Further, RW- 1, a witness examined by insurer, admitted that deceased’s body was lying near right front wheel of jeep (insured vehicle), which had run over deceased’s head. This would clearly indicate that accident/death was attributable to driver of jeep. In view of above admission, Insurance Company was rightly held liable. Therefore, no interference with judgment and award was warranted. 4. Heard leaned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3082 MFA No. 200026 of 2021 5. From above and since, insurer is challenging award on ground of false implication of insured vehicle for purpose of claim, point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether fastening of entire liability on insurer of jeep is justified? 6. Answer to above is in affirmative for following reasons. 7. It is settled legal principal that in motor vehicle accident claims, police investigation records would be prima facie material to establish occurrence of accident and negligence and would not be conclusive. Both parties may lead evidence to clarify or contradict such material. In instant case, perusal of claim petition filed itself would indicate that claimants had from very initial stage maintained clear stand about accident having been caused by driver of insured jeep. They also specifically asserted that insurer/owner of jeep had to escape liability by creating a story of accident caused by tipper. 8. To substantiate same, claimants relied on deposition by claimant no.1, eye witness as PW-2 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3082 MFA No. 200026 of 2021 complainant as PW-3. PW-1 is admittedly not an eyewitness. PW-1, deposed about occurrence of accident, involvement of insured vehicle, death of her son and loss of dependency. PW-2 in his deposition stated that at time of accident, he was sitting infront of dhaba near Yankanchi bypass, when he saw deceased riding motorcycle had almost crossed Vijayapura - Kalaburagi Road at Yankanchi bypass cross, when insured jeep, driven in high speed and rash and negligent manner from Kalaburagi side, dashed against motorcycle. Though, cross-examination of said witness, is with intention to establish that witness had come to Court at instance of claimants only to help them without witnessing accident, suggestions made about not informing police about manner of accident and about witness not being present at spot at time of accident are denied. PW- 3/complainant, is brother of deceased, who admitted that he did not witness accident. 9. On other hand, official of insurer is examined as RW-1. In his cross examination, it is elicited that body of deceased was lying infront of jeep and that right wheel of jeep had run over head of deceased. While passing impugned judgment and award, Tribunal has not only taken note of entire - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3082 MFA No. 200026 of 2021 police investigation record, but it also referred to oral evidence. For purposes of Section 163-A of MV Act, involvement of insured vehicle in accident would suffice. Therefore, above material would support conclusion of Tribunal for fastening liability on insurer. Impugned award being based on material and passed by assigning proper reasons, I do not find any error or perversity warranting interference. Hence, no ground to admit. Accordingly, following: ORDER a) Appeal is dismissed. b) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for payment. Balance amount, if any, be deposited within a period of six weeks. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SN,NJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34/Ct;Vk