- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20595 MFA No. 2377 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SHARADAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. K. RAJSHEKAR S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 3. NARAYANA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 4. PARASHURAM K S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF NO.733, B.S.ROAD, NEAR BEERALINGESHWARA TEMPLE, CHALVADHI KERI, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASHISH RASKAR S/O ASHOK, DRIVER OF THE BOLERO Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20595 MFA No. 2377 of 2014 BEARING NO. MH-12/HN-9793, BELSAR AT POST, PURANDHAR TALUK, PUNE DISTRICT- 411 001. 2. JAGTAP PRAVIN CHANDRAKANT FATHER NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN, DRIVER OF THE BOLERO BEARING NO. MH-12/HN-9793, BELSAR AT POST, PURANDHAR TALUK, PUNE DISTRICT- 411 001. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER RELIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD, S.M TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR, 11TH CROSS,JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 11. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHUNATHA GOWDA K J.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2, SRI. H.C. BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED06.01.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.342/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20595 MFA No. 2377 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 06.01.2014 passed by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Davanagere (for short 'the Tribunal')in MVC NO.342/2013. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that: on 17.02.2013 at about 10.45 a.m., the deceased E.Krishnappa was crossing NH-4 at Angodu Bus stand, at that time, the deceased Krishnappa met with an accident, due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero vehicle bearing registration NO.MH-12/HN- 9793, which was coming from Davanagere side as a result, he sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere and for higher treatment he was shifted to S.S.Hospital, Davanagere and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 22.02.2013. 4. It is further the case of the claimant that claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 to 4 are sons of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20595 MFA No. 2377 of 2014 deceased Krishnappa. Krishnappa was aged about 60 years, he was a coolie, and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimants were dependent upon his earnings. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle (Bolero car) bearing registration No.MH- 12/HN-9793. 6. Respondent No.1 filed written statement and it was adopted by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 denied contents of claim petition. He further contended that accident occurred due to negligence of deceased. The said vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3 and policy was in force. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. Respondent No.3 in its written statement denied the contentions of the claimants. Denied its liability to pay compensation. It has contended that the vehicle was falsely - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20595 MFA No. 2377 of 2014 implicated in this case to claim compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. The Tribunal framed necessary issues. 8. The claimant to prove their case examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P29. Respondent No.3 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked Exs.R1 to R11. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident was not proved. 9. I have heard the arguments. 10. The learned advocate for the claimants contends that PW1 deposed facts of the case. Death of Krishnappa is not disputed. A criminal case was registered against offending vehicle. In the course of investigation, the said vehicle was found to be involved in the accident. In fact, the charge sheet was filed against the driver or owner of the said vehicle and they have not challenged the same. Therefore, a mere mistake in mentioning the vehicle number by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20595 MFA No. 2377 of 2014 driver of the ambulance, in the MLC record cannot be a ground to disbelieve the involvement of the said accident. The Tribunal failed to properly consider the materials available on record and hence the appellants prayed for allowing the appeal and awarding of the compensation. 11. Learned counsel for the insurer vehemently contend that in Ex.P2, the vehicle number is mentioned as MH-12/HN-8753 and it appears to be hit and run case. On the basis of the said Ex.P2, the SHO of the concerned police station instead of mentioning the very same number has stated different vehicle number i.e. vehicle bearing registration No.MH-12/HN-9793 that caused the accident in question. There is no explanation by the concerned SHO as to why different vehicle number was mentioned in the endorsement on the backside of the MLC intimation. It is also not the case of the concerned SHO that he visited the spot of the accident and noted the vehicle number by himself. On the next day of the incident, a mahazar was drawn and the said vehicle was seized. It was marked at Exs.P3 and P4. The said vehicle appears to be different from - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20595 MFA No. 2377 of 2014 the vehicle in this accident. Taking undue advantage of the same, the said vehicle was falsely implicated in the present case. 12. It is further contended that the claimants failed to examine any of the witnesses to the accident. Even the investigating officer was not examined to clarify the said confusion regarding the vehicle number mentioned in Ex.P2 as well as in the charge sheet. Considering these facts, the trial Court rightly dismissed the claim petition. There are no materials to show that the findings are erroneous. 13. He further contends that Ex.R4 indicates that the accident occurred in the middle of the road going from Davanagere to Chitradurga, which was a national high way and in between there was a road divider. The width of one side of the road was about 30 feet. The sketch also shows that the accident took place in the middle of the road. It leads to an inference that due to negligence of deceased and not driver of the alleged vehicle. He further contended that it is not the case of the claimant that there was a zebra - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20595 MFA No. 2377 of 2014 crossing and that the deceased was crossing the road at that spot. Even if the Court considered that the said vehicle involved in the accident, Ex.P4 clearly indicates that it was due to negligence of the deceased and not the driver of the vehicle. On both these counts, the claim petition is not maintainable. The said facts have been properly considered by the Tribunal, which rightly dismissed the claim petition and hence it does not warrant interference by this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 14. I have perused the records as well as documents produced by both the parties. 15. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent - insurer is tenable. The doctor sent the intimation about the incident to the concerned police station as per Ex.P2, wherein the vehicle number is mentioned as MH-12-8753. However, on the back page of same, the concerned SHO mentioned the present vehicle number as MH-12/HN-9793. It is specifically noted in the endorsement that since the injured person was unable to give any - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20595 MFA No. 2377 of 2014 statement, the FIR was registered on the basis of the medical intimation. If that is the case, there is no explanation as to how the vehicle number was changed. The claimants have not examined the person who made the said endorsement to prima facie establish the claimants version. The subsequent documents, such as, spot mahazar, MV report etc., pertain to the car bearing registration No.MH- 12/HN-9793. 16. Admittedly, the claimants are not eye witnesses. As per the charge sheet, the only eye witness in this case is Ravi K, who was not examined by the claimant to prove the involvement of the said vehicle. In the cross-examination of RW-1 nothing has been brought out to suggest that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.MH-12/HN-9793. This information is said to have been given by medical officer at the hospital. Otherwise, there is no reason for the concerned doctor to have mentioned the wrong vehicle number. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20595 MFA No. 2377 of 2014 17. The learned counsel for the claimants contends that the incorrect vehicle number was given by the driver of the ambulance, who shifted the injured to the hospital. However, the claimants have not even examined the said driver to clarify whether he gave wrong vehicle number to the doctor, which was mentioned in the medical intimation. Under such circumstances, there is no material on record to support the claim that vehicle number was wrongly given to the doctor. 18. The Tribunal has considered all these facts and rightly concluded that the said vehicle was falsely implicated later for wrongful benefit. After re-appreciating the materials on record, I am of the same opinion as held by the Tribunal. In view of the same, appellants-claimants failed to prove that accident occurred due to involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No.MH-12/HN-9793. Hence, respondents are not liable to pay the compensation. 19. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20595 MFA No. 2377 of 2014 ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and award dated 06.01.2014 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Davanagere in MVC.No.342/2013 is confirmed. iii. Send back the trial Court records along with the copy of the judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15