- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21749 MFA No. 10605 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10605 OF 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAJENDRA, S/O YALANKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PLASTIC FLOWER AND RUDRAKSHI MERCHANT 2. KUSUMA, D/O RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, 3. TULASI BAI, D/O RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN, THEIR FATEHR RAJENDRA S/O YALANKAPPA, All ARE R/O HAKKI PIKKI CAMP, GOUTHAM NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUBHASH KARLEKAR, S/O RUDRANI, AGE:MAJOR, DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REG.NO.KA-22/B-5417, R/AT NANDGAD, KHANAPUR TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT-591 302. Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21749 MFA No. 10605 of 2018 2. GAJANAN PRABHAKAR CHAVAN, S/O PRABHAKAR, AGE:MAJOR, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING RE NO.KA-22/B-5417, R/AT BAZAR PETH, NANDGAD, KHANAPUR TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT-591 302. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., AA CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201, POLICY NO.240181/31/12/01/00001886, VAILD FROM 4.8.2012 TO 03.08.2013. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI.,ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.491/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., VI, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND ETC,. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 08.08.2017 passed in MVC.No.491/2013 by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21749 MFA No. 10605 of 2018 the Principal Senior Civil Judge and AMACT-VI Shivamogga1 whereunder the claim petition filed by the claimants has been dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri M Ravindranath for the appellants and learned counsel Sri Ravish Benni for respondent No.3 – insurer. 3. It is vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the finding of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimants is erroneous and contends that the material on record would indicate that the deceased had sustained injuries in the accident in question. Hence, it is contented that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation. It is further contented that the testimony of the PW.1 and PW.2 that the deceased initially took treatment at the Government Hospital in Shikaripura and due to grievous injuries sustained had been referred to take treatment at Shivamogga. However, unfortunately, the deceased died in the bus stand at Shivamogga. Hence, learned 1 Hereinafter referred as to ‘Tribunal’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21749 MFA No. 10605 of 2018 counsel seeks for allowing of the above appeal and granting of relief sought for. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 – insurer justifying the findings recorded by the Tribunal contends that the findings of the Tribunal is just and proper as there are many inconsistencies in the case put forth by the claimants. That the judgment and award of the Tribunal ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. 5. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The question that arises for consideration is ‘whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition is erroneous and liable to be interfered with?’ 6. It is forthcoming that the Tribunal while appreciating the material on record has noticed that the jurisdictional police authorities in Crime No.8/2013 recorded the statement of the mother of the deceased, who had stated that the deceased was married to one Sri. Rajendra about 10 years ago and that they had two children. That about 2 years - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21749 MFA No. 10605 of 2018 back the husband of the deceased deserted her. That the deceased was suffering from cancer and had undergone surgery in Hyderabad. That the deceased was consuming alcohol and begging in the KSRTC bus stand Shivamogga. The police authorities have also recorded the statement of another lady by name Mis. Tejavathi who identified the dead body of the deceased and had stated that the deceased was begging in the bus stand. 7. Noticing the said statements, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the claimant had admitted that the deceased was sleeping in the bus stand and that it appeared that the claimants have falsely claimed that she was vending various items at different places. Hence, the Tribunal held that the claimants had failed to demonstrate that the death of the deceased was as a result of the accident in question. 8. The Tribunal has further noticed that the injuries that were mentioned in the post mortem report (Ex.P8) and inquest mahazar (Ex.P7) did not contain any observations regarding external injuries appearing on the dead body, whereas in the wound certificate (Ex.P6) there were certain - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21749 MFA No. 10605 of 2018 injuries and hence, the said documents were not in consonance with each other. 9. The Tribunal has further noticed that in the inquest mahazar (Ex.P7) there was a specific reference to a surgery mark at the abdomen of the deceased. That PW.2 had failed to identify the injured he has examined at the Government Hospital Shikaripura along with the photo appearing in the police notice (Ex.P1). That the testimony regarding the accident was given nearly 41 days after the alleged accident. 10. It is clear from the aforementioned that the Tribunal has noticed various inconsistencies in the case put forth by the claimants. Further, it is relevant to note that there is no material record which indicates that the deceased had sustained the injuries in the alleged accident as is sought to be averred in the claim petition. 11. In view of the aforementioned, the appellants have failed in demonstrating that the finding of the Tribunal is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. The question framed for consideration is answered in the negative. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21749 MFA No. 10605 of 2018 12. Hence, the above appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 95