- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224 MFA No. 25288 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25288 OF 2012 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BHIMAPPA S/O LAXAMAN NAIK AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRI & COOLIE R/O. AINAPUR, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM …APPELLANT (BY SMT. CHAITRA M.M, ADV FOR SRI. K.H BAGI, ADV) AND: 1. HARICHANDRA BHIMU DHANG SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SRI. MAHANTESH HARICHANDRA DHANG AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRI. R/O. ANKALI, TQ: CHIKKODI DIST: BELGAUM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.4567, K.C.ROAD, 1ST FLOOR NEAR PRABHAKAR TALKIES, CHIKKODI TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ARUNA DESHAPANDE, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 28.04.2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.2847/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-V, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC. 166 OF MV ACT. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224 MFA No. 25288 of 2012 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and award dated 28.04.2012 passed in MVC No.2847/2011 by the learned IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Member, MACT-V, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 12.02.2020, the petitioner and another person were proceeding from Kagawad to Chikkodi on a motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-29/J-2182, and the petitioner was riding the said motor cycle. When they came near the accident spot, at that time, the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.KA-23/TA-669 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224 MFA No. 25288 of 2012 drove his vehicle from the opposite direction at a high speed, and in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner and the pillion rider both filed the claim petitions in MVC No.2846 of 2011 and 2847 of 2011 seeking compensation. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petitions. 4. The owner of the alleged offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and admitted that he is the owner of the offending tractor bearing registration No.KA- 23/TA-669 and that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the Tractor. 5. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and also contended that no such alleged accident occurred - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224 MFA No. 25288 of 2012 on 12.02.2010 and contended that the complaint was lodged on 20.02.2010. Also, there is an abnormal delay in lodging the complaint regarding the alleged accident. It is contented that the petitioner was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-29/J-2182 and the petitioner in the instant case was riding the motorcycle without possessing a driving license and they fell down from the said motorcycle. As a result, the accident occurred. 6. It is contended that the petitioner has falsely implicated the tractor bearing registration No.KA- 23/TA-669. Hence, it is contended that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of accident, as such, there is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the insurance company. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224 MFA No. 25288 of 2012 7. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed separate issues, and recorded common evidence. 8. The petitioner in MVC No.2846 of 2011 was examined as PW-1, the petitioner in MVC No.2847 of 2011 was examined as PW-2, examined the doctor as PW-3 and marked 29 documents as Exhibit P-1 to P-29. 9. In rebuttal, neither the owner, nor the insurance company has led any oral evidence, however, the insurance company got marked one document as Exhibit R-1 with consent. 10. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petitions vide judgment dated 28.04.2012. 11. The petitioner in MVC No.2847/2011, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, filed this appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224 MFA No. 25288 of 2012 12. Heard the arguments of Smt.Chaitra M.M., learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.Aruna Deshapande, learned counsel for respondent No.2—insurance company. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal, without considering the material placed on record, committed an error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove the alleged incident; there is a delay in lodging the complaint and that the petitioner has not sustained injuries in the road traffic accident, and the petitioner has falsely implicated the alleged tractor to claim the compensation. 14. She submits that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the tractor. Neither the owner, nor the insurance company has challenged the charge sheet. The Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition. On the contrary, it has dismissed the claim petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224 MFA No. 25288 of 2012 Hence, on these grounds, she submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary, erroneous and perverse. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal. 15. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the tractor had been falsely implicated to claim compensation. She also submits that there is a delay of 8 days in lodging the complaint. The petitioner has not shown any cause for lodging the complaint at a belated stage. She submits that the Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 has rightly dismissed the claim petitions. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the appeal against the insurance company. 16. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 17. The point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224 MFA No. 25288 of 2012 “Whether the petitioner proves that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition without considering the entire evidence on record?” 18. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was riding a motorcycle on 12.10.2010. The Tractor came from the opposite direction and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner and pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. To prove the accident, the petitioner has produced the charge-sheet marked as Exhibit P3. To establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending tractor, the petitioner in MVC No.2846 of 2011 was examined as PW-1. He reiterated the claim petition averments in the examination-in-chief. 19. During cross examination of PW-, he has deposed that the accident occurred on 11.02.2010. But the records produced by the petitioner disclose that the alleged - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224 MFA No. 25288 of 2012 accident occurred on 12.02.2010 and further, he pleaded ignorance regarding the ownership of the motorcycle on which he was traveling as a pillion rider and to the question that there was no impediment for him to lodge the complaint immediately after the alleged accident, he stated that he suffered an injury on abdomen. As per wound certificate/Ex.P-5, the petitioner in the said case has suffered only abrasion on the head and he was not admitted as an inpatient in any hospital. 20. The petitioner in MVC No.2847 of 2011 was examined as PW-2. He reiterated the claim petition averments in the examination-in-chief, and he has deposed that the accident occurred on 12.02.2010. 21. In the cross examination of PW-2, it is elicited that the motorcycle belongs to him, but he pleaded ignorance of the registration number of his vehicle, and he admitted that he did not own any other vehicles before - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224 MFA No. 25288 of 2012 purchasing the alleged motorcycle and he admitted that was not holding any driving license as of the date of accident. 22. Though the PW2 claims to be the owner of the motorcycle, he was unable to say as to from whom he had purchased it. Further, from the perusal of the complaint as well as the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and documentary evidence adduced, it discloses that the petitioners have put up a different story in the complaint, claim petition and also in the evidence, altogether there are contradictions in the complaint and the claim petition. 23. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence has raised a doubt regarding the occurrence of alleged accident and also the alleged injuries sustained by the petitioner. 24. The Tribunal was justified in recording its finding that the petitioner has failed to prove that he has sustained - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224 MFA No. 25288 of 2012 injuries due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor and failed to prove that the alleged accident involving the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-29/J-2182 and the Tractor bearing registration No.KA-23/TA-669. The Tribunal has considered the entire evidence on record and has rightly dismissed the claim petition. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award. 25. In view of the above discussion, the point for consideration is answered accordingly. 26. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (I) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. (II) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224 MFA No. 25288 of 2012 (III) The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1