- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16303 MFA No. 100943 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100943 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHAIK MAZEED S/O. MERSAB, AGE: 63 YEARS, R/O : J.P NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, HOSPET, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S. SMT. AKTHAR BANU, W/O. LATE SHAIK MAZEED, AGE: 55 YEARS, R/O : J.P NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, HOSPET. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOHAMMED IQBAL S/O. KARIMSAB, AGE: 42 YEARS, OWNER OF MINI LORRY, R/O CHAPPARADAHALLI, HOSPET, B-NOKA-37/2584. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16303 MFA No. 100943 of 2014 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED, INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., STATION ROAD, HOSPET. 3. MABU @ MEHABOOB SAB S/O. BANDI AYATHSAB 40 YEARS, DRIVER OF MINI LORRY R/O. CHAPPARADHALLI, NEAR KRISHNA TOURIST HOME, HOSPET. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 & R3 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2013 PASSED BY IN THE COURT OF THE PRI SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AND PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-IV HOSPET IN MVC NO.1436/2011 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANT AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16303 MFA No. 100943 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri Akash, who represents Sri Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel on record for the appellant as well as Sri S.S.Koliwad learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Hospet in MVC 1436 of 2011 dated 15.04.2013. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the husband of the appellant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred in the month of January 2011. In the month of December 2011 he died. The husband of the appellant filed a petition claiming compensation. During the pendency of the case he died and thereafter his wife i.e., the appellant herein came on record. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.55,000/- as compensation. However, the husband of the appellant who - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16303 MFA No. 100943 of 2014 took treatment at Manipal Hospital incurred lakhs of rupees for treatment. Further the death is due to the injuries sustained. These facts were not considered by the tribunal and therefore the present appeal is filed. 4. The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellant examined herself as PW1. She did not choose to examine any of the treated doctors or any of the hospital authorities where her husband took treatment. There is no nexus between the injuries sustained and the death. Also the appellant failed to establish the genuineness of Ex.P12, Ex.P.14 and Ex.P15 medical bills. Thus the tribunal rightly awarded Rs.55,000/- only as compensation. 5. As rightly contented by learned counsel for respondent No.2, there is no material on record to show that the death is due to the injuries sustained. Though the appellant produced medical bills, she did not choose to establish the genuineness of those bills. Production of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16303 MFA No. 100943 of 2014 certain documents does not ipso facto mean that the Court has to consider them to be genuine. The party who produces the documents will be under obligation to establish their genuineness as per the procedure established by law. In the case on hand, as rightly contented by learned counsel for respondent No.2 neither the cause of death is established nor genuineness of the bills produced was established by the appellant. Therefore this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the tribunal that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.55,000/- only as compensation. 6. Hence the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20