- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12609 MFA No. 8145 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8145 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. HARSHA J RAO S/O JEETHENDRA S. RAO, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT "SHUBHALAXMI NILAYA" MAIN ROAD, BARKURU POST, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR.UMESH SHETTY S/O. RATHNAKAR SHETTY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT MELMANE, KASANAMAKKI, YADADI-MATHYADI VILLAGE & POST KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE:UDUPI REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1- SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.572/13 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12609 MFA No. 8145 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.572/2013 dated 08.07.2016 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant is dismissed. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 22.01.2013 at about 6.00 p.m. he is the pillion rider on the bike, rider of the bike rode the bike in a rash and negligent manner, he fell down and sustained injuries. He took treatment as inpatient from 22.01.2013 to 28.01.2013 and further from 18.02.2013 to 20.02.2013. The claim petition is dismissed on the ground that the accident had taken on 22.01.2013, the complaint is given on 26.04.2013. When he filed a private complaint and when the same is referred to police, the police have conducted the investigation and thereafter filed the B-report. They have stated that except the claimant there is no other evidence to show that they met with an accident and sustained the injuries. Accordingly, the tribunal had dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby the claimant is before this court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12609 MFA No. 8145 of 2016 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that in the B-Report the doctor has stated that there are two wound certificates, where the claimant had sustained injuries and rider of the bike had sustained simple injuries that itself shows that accident had taken place. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ insurance company submits that considering the B-Report and relying the complaint given the tribunal had rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. According to the claimant the accident had taken place, though the hospital authorities have given an intimation, the crime is not registered, later he had filed a private complaint to the police, the police after investigation has filed a B-Report. If the said B-report is filed when the query before the court when the same was questioned, learned counsel submits that they have questioned but he is not aware of what has happened, if some time is granted he will produce the same. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12609 MFA No. 8145 of 2016 6. This court has perused the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly to claimant, rider is riding the vehicle and both the rider and pillion rider have sustained simple and grievous injuries, in that case, the first thing he should have done is he should have examined the concerned person, but rider of the motorbike is not examined. In this case the delay in giving the complaint this court is not going to that aspect, as per the case sheet the intimation is given to the police on the very same day, however it contains that it is a fall from the bike. The burden of proof in these cases is prepondence of probability. Even on prepondence of probability also the appellant/claimant could not satisfy the court and failed to discharge the burden fastened upon him in an application filed under section 166 of the MV Act. 7. In that view of the matter this court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal as this court is not interfering with any of the findings of the Tribunal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12609 MFA No. 8145 of 2016 i. Accordingly, the appeal filed by 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. iii. No Costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21