- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13564 MFA No. 7665 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7665 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: RAJU @ RAJA @ RAJAPPA S S/O SHEKHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O KUMBRI NARAYANAPUR, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, NOW R/AT C/O NAGARJA S/O RUDRAPPA, R/O HALLIKERARA ROAD, CHANNAGIRI TOWN-577 213 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PUTTASWAMY S/O MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, OWNER OF DRIVER OF TILLER BEARING NO.KA-14/7290, R/O KUMBRI NARAYANAPUR BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD ., 1ST FLOOR, MALLIKARJUNA COMPLEX, PRAVASI MANDIR ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT.GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13564 MFA No. 7665 of 2015 THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.46/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T, CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the dismissal order in M.V.C.No.46/2012 dated 29.06.2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Channagiri, the appellant/claimant is before this Court. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 18.09.2011, he was proceeding towards Kudligere Village in Hero Honda motorcycle and at about 7.30 p.m., when he came near the poultry farm of Narasimha Naidu, a Tiller was coming from the opposite direction without having any headlight. The driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without observing the traffic rules and regulations and hit the same to the motorcycle and caused the accident. 3. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition observing that in this case it can be clearly held that since the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13564 MFA No. 7665 of 2015 power tiller is a small vehicle which cannot move fast, the case of the claimant that the power tiller came in high speed and dashed against his motor cycle cannot be acceptable. If at all the claimant was not going in a high speed, there could not have been such a severe damage to both the vehicles as mentioned in the IMV report which is marked as Ex.P.4 and there could not have been any such injury to the claimant. Hence, it can be clearly held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle in which the claimant was going and it also shows that the power tiller is not involved in the accident and accordingly, the Tribunal had negatived the contention of the claimant that there is rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tiller. The Tribunal had also observed that the Police have filed the charge sheet against the 1st respondent who caused the accident in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. On perusal of the entire records and nature of the vehicle involved in the accident, it can be held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle and by the claimant himself and not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tiller. The Tribunal gave a finding that the power tiller is a small vehicle - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13564 MFA No. 7665 of 2015 and it cannot be driven on the road itself. It should be run by holding it by a person who can walk with it and no person can sit on it. Such being the nature of the power tiller, the 1st respondent cannot drive the same in a rash and negligent manner and accordingly, the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal more on assumptions and presumptions had dismissed the petition. He submits that it is the case of the claimant that the power tiller was moving without headlight and the accident had occurred at 7:30 p.m. and because of that, the accident had taken place. It is submitted that the Police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the power tiller. In that case, the claimant had discharged his burden and the burden lies on the Insurance Company to prove that the accident had taken place on behalf of the negligence of the claimant but not of the driver of the power tiller. It is submitted that the Tribunal by assuming and presuming the things had dismissed the petition. He submits that the involvement of the vehicle is not in dispute, it is about the negligence. It is submitted that not switching on the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13564 MFA No. 7665 of 2015 headlights at 7:30 p.m. amounts to negligence and on that basis, the insurer of the power tiller is liable to pay the compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company submits that Ex.R1 is the true copy of sketch which shows that the power tiller is at an extreme left side of the road and the claimant who is coming from the opposite side has gone to the extreme left side and hit the vehicle. That itself shows that there is negligence on the part of the claimant. Further, in his cross-examination, he had deposed that he could see the tiller from 15 feet away and it is stated that the tiller cannot move more than 6 kms speed. It is submitted that all these things clearly shows that the claimant is at fault. It is submitted that even in the criminal case also, the accused is acquitted and the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident had taken place because of the negligence on the part of the claimant. 6. In response to the same, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that there is no judgment placed on record to make such a submission and he denied the same. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13564 MFA No. 7665 of 2015 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The vehicle that is involved in this case is a power tiller. It is an admitted fact that it cannot move on its own. It has to be held by a person and the Tribunal gave a finding that it should be run by holding it by person who can walk with it and no person can sit on it. Even as per the evidence of the claimant, he could see the power tiller 15 feet away from him, he says that because the headlight was not switched on, the accident had taken place. The said evidence in the cross-examination and the case of the claimant are not going together and in fact, they are contrary to the case of the claimant. Considering all these facts, the Tribunal had rightly held that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the tiller and it is on the part of the claimant. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant that the finding of the Tribunal is more on assumptions and presumptions has no legs to stand. Hence, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13564 MFA No. 7665 of 2015 i. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. ii. No costs. iii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9