- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15108 MFA No. 3226 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3226 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: LAKSHMINARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O NARASAPPA, R/O BIDARAKERE VILLAGE-572 132, MEDIGESHI HOBLI,MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SATHISHA T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T G LOKESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, SON OF GOVINDAPPA, R/O THOTAMADAGALU VILLAGE-572132, HANUMANTHAPURA POST, MEDIGESHI HOBLI,MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR-572 101, BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUDATH V.R., ADV. FOR SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADV. FOR R1, E.I. SANMATHI, ADV. FOR R2.) Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15108 MFA No. 3226 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.55/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT-12, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.55/2010 dated 31.12.2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XII, Madhugiri, the claimant is before this Court. 2. The appellant herein has filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. It is his case that on 17.03.2010, the claimant was coming from Kyathagondanahalli on Bidarekere tank bund on Madhugiri-Pavgada Road by bicycle on the left side of the road, at that point of time, a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA- 09-EA-6060 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant’s bicycle and caused the accident. He sustained injuries and he has shifted to hospital and took treatment and spent huge amount. It is stated that - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15108 MFA No. 3226 of 2014 the name of the driver of the motor vehicle is Ramesh S/o. Chalapathy and the registration number is KA-09-EA-6060. It is also stated that the driver of the vehicle assured him to bear the hospital expenses and not to file case against him. 3. It is further stated that before the Court below, the son of the claimant was examined as PW.2. In his chief affidavit, it is stated that accident was caused by Ramesh, who is driving the motor cycle at the time of accident. But he witnessed in his cross examination by giving evidence that the motorcycle belongs to one Lokesh and he has caused accident to his father and deposed that the vehicle is driven by Lokesh. The Court below has dismissed the claim petition observing the nature of evidence adduced by PW.2 i.e. the son of the claimant goes to show that there is no consistency regarding who is the owner of the offending vehicle and who was driving the same at the time of accident. 4. The Court below has also considered the fact that the accident took place on 17.03.2010 and the complaint was filed on 27.03.2010 and there is a delay of ten days in filing the complaint. Further, in the criminal case No.505/2010, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15108 MFA No. 3226 of 2014 accused Ramesh has pleaded guilty. The Court has also observed that mere filing of charge sheet or that accused pleaded guilty cannot absolve the petitioner from proving the fact that the accident took place due to the fault of the driver of offending vehicle and the said vehicle is involved in the accident. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are contrary to each other with respect to the persons who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and as such, the Court has dismissed the claim petition. 5. This Court has perused the order sheet and this appeal is of the year 2014. On several occasion also, the appellant was not present or he sought for time. On 07.01.2025, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has recorded that there was no representation on appellant’s side on 23.11.2024. However, adjournment was granted. On 02.12.2024, learned counsel for the appellant sought time and accordingly time was granted and the Court has observed that even on 07.01.2025, there is no representation on behalf of appellant. Hence, directed the matter to be listed for 'dismissal' on 13.02.2025 and again when the matter came up on 13.02.2025. On that day, the learned counsel for appellant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15108 MFA No. 3226 of 2014 prayed for time to file translated copies and again two weeks time is granted and the matter is directed to be listed on 27.03.2025. On that day, there is no representation on behalf of appellant and hence, the matter is directed to be listed on 09.04.2025. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of appellant and the appeal is of the year 2014. This Court is inclined to consider the appeal on merits. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle submits that the Court below had rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by it. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 8. It is the case of the appellant that the vehicle involved in the accident is driven by one Ramesh and they have given the vehicle number also. With delay of 10 days, the complaint is given to the police. The complaint is given by the son of appellant. In the chief affidavit, it is stated that one Ramesh is the owner and driver of the offending vehicle but in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15108 MFA No. 3226 of 2014 the cross examination, it is stated that the vehicle belongs to one Lokesh and the said Lokesh is driving the vehicle. The Tribunal had rightly held that mere filing of charge sheet or pleading guilty by the accused i.e. by one Ramesh who is alleged to be the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be a ground for the Tribunal to come to such a conclusion and the Tribunal has rightly considered the inconsistency in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in respect of ownership of the offending vehicle and has rightly dismissed the claim petition. 9. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. All IAs., in this appeal shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11