- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14548 MFA No. 8001 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8001 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. SUGANDARAJ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O.LATE KANNAPPA @ KANNAN, R/AT. NO.19, 1ST C MAIN ROAD, CAUVERY EXTENSION, NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR RAJU S/O. SRI. HARI RAJU, BASAVESHWARA NILAYA, NO.66, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 003 2. THE MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.69, 2ND FLOOR, J.P. & DEVI, JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE, NEAR ICICI FIRST SOURCE, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LINGARAJ H.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.2.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3979/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14548 MFA No. 8001 of 2015 JUDGE, XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, 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 of MVC No.3979/2012 dated 24.02.2015 by the Addl. Small Causes Judge and XXVIII ACMM and MACT,Bengalur, the claimant is before this court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-.The facts of the case are that on 01.04.2012 at about 6:15 p.m., the claimant was driving Scorpio car at Doddagere village near Nelamangala, at that time, a Maruti Alto car which was moving in front of Scorpio at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly applied break without giving any signal, as a result, the Scorpio dashed against the Maruti alto and fell into the pit. Due to the impact the claimant had sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to global Hospital, Vijayanagara Bengaluru, where he took treatment and spent considerable amount for treatment. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14548 MFA No. 8001 of 2015 3. The tribunal had dismissed the claim petition holding that this claim petition is filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the claimant himself was driving the vehicle. Basing on the complaint given by the driver of the Maruti Alto car, a crime is registered against the claimant and the charge sheet is also filed against him. The tribunal had considered this aspect and also the fact that the damages reflecting from the IMV report marked at Ex.P-4 discloses that the claimants vehicle was damaged in the front side and the alto car was damaged on the rear side. The damage is reflecting from the IMV report to endorse that the claimant was negligent in causing the accident so looking from any angle the tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant has utterly failed to prove that the driver of the alto car was negligent in causing the accident. Further admission made by the claimant and the documents placed by him shows that he was negligent in causing the accident. The tribunal has also extracted the evidence of the claimant wherein it is stated that on that day he was driving the vehicle belong to one Girish. His vehicle is behind the Maruti Alto car. It is true to suggest that he dashed against the Maruti alto car which was proceeding ahead of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14548 MFA No. 8001 of 2015 claimant and it is also stated that it is true to suggest that inmates of the Maruti Alto car has filed the complaint against the claimant and the charge sheet was filed against him. The tribunal also observed that when a charge sheet is filed and he is not at fault he could have taken some steps to file an appropriate petition to quash the charge sheet but no steps were taken and even apart from that no other independent evidence is available on record and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the tribunal considered the police records and the respondents have not examined anybody in respect of the charge sheet or any other evidence placed on record. Without examining the IO or any witness in support of the said Police records which are filed before the court, the tribunal cannot consider the said evidence on the face value of it. It is submitted that the claimant has proved that the accident has happened because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto car, whereas, the respondent could not prove that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto car and still the tribunal had dismissed the petition. Learned - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14548 MFA No. 8001 of 2015 counsel had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kiran Vs. Saajan Singh and others1 and also relied on the case in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yousurf Basha and another2 and relying on these judgments it is submitted that basing on these grounds the tribunal cannot come to the conclusion that there is negligence on the part of the claimant and the order impugned needs to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company submits that when an application is filed under section 166 of M.V Act, prima facie to prove that the accident has happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the opposite vehicle is on the claimant. It is submitted that in this case, no such evidence is adduced and the tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The claim petition was rightly dismissed by the tribunal and the court had rightly considered the evidence of PW-2, the police records which clearly discloses 1 2014 ACJ 2500 2 2015 ACJ 1216 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14548 MFA No. 8001 of 2015 that because of the negligence on the part of the claimant the accident has happened. If at all the claimant is not negligent he would have taken steps to quash the charge sheet which is filed against him and it is not even the case that he is not aware of the same. In the evidence also it has been categorically admitted by the claimant. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the insurance company has not adduced any evidence has no legs to stand for the reason. When the claim petition is filed under section 166 of MV Act the initial burden lies on the claimant which he has failed to discharge. The judgments which are relied on by the learned counsel for the claimant do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the considered opinion of this Court, the tribunal had rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere. i. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is dismissed. ii. The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14548 MFA No. 8001 of 2015 iii. No Costs. iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 11