- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227 MFA No. 20145 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013 MFA No. 20146 of 2013 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. 20145 OF 2013 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20144 OF 2013 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20146 OF 2013 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 20145/2013 BETWEEN: 1. SHIDDAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA HADIMANI AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, R/O. BIKKANNAVAR ONI, SAUNDATTI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI & SRI.D.M. MALLI, ADVS) AND: 1. 1a. 1b. 1c. MOULASAB S/O. DIVANSAB BAVAKKANAVAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., SMT. BIBIJA W/O MOULASAB BAVAKKANAVAR AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK BUDANSAB S/O MOULASAB BAVAKKANAVAR AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE SMT. HAJARATBI W/O RIYAZ LALENNAVAR AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK ALL ARE R/O: MANIKATTI VILLAGE, AT POST: MANIKATTI, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-580028. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, APMC YARD SAUNDATTI, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227 MFA No. 20145 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013 MFA No. 20146 of 2013 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1(A TO C) ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.07.2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.1677/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SOUNDATTI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT. IN MFA NO. 20144/2013 BETWEEN: 1. ANAND S/O. SAVALAGEPPA DIVATAGI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, R/O. HANAMASAGAR VILLAGE, TAL: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI & SRI.D M MALLI, ADV) AND: 1. 1a. 1b. 1c. MOULASAB S/O. DIVANSAB BAVAKKANAVAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., SMT. BIBIJA W/O MOULASAB BAVAKKANAVAR AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK BUDANSAB S/O MOULASAB BAVAKKANAVAR AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE SMT. HAJARATBI W/O RIYAZ LALENNAVAR AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK ALL ARE R/O: MANIKATTI VILLAGE, AT POST: MANIKATTI, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, APMC YARD SAUNDATTI, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227 MFA No. 20145 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013 MFA No. 20146 of 2013 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADV FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1(A TO C) ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.07.2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.1678/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SOUNDATTI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT. IN MFA NO. 20146/2013 BETWEEN: 1. YALLAPPA S/O VIRUPAXAPPA HANASI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, R/O: KUMBAR ONI, SAUNDATTI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI & SRI.D M MALLI, ADVS) AND: 1. 1a. 1b. 1c. MOULASAB S/O. DIVANSAB BAVAKKANAVAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., SMT. BIBIJA W/O MOULASAB BAVAKKANAVAR AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK BUDANSAB S/O MOULASAB BAVAKKANAVAR AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE SMT. HAJARATBI W/O RIYAZ LALENNAVAR AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK ALL ARE R/O: MANIKATTI VILLAGE, AT POST: MANIKATTI, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-580028. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, APMC YARD SAUNDATTI, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227 MFA No. 20145 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013 MFA No. 20146 of 2013 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADV FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1(A TO C) ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.07.2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.1656/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SOUNDATTI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT These Appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the claimants, challenging the common judgment dated 11.07.2012 passed in MVC Nos. 1656, 1677 and 1678 of 2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Saundatti. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals, are as follows: 3. On 24.07.2009, the petitioners in MVC Nos. 1656 and 1677 of 2010 were proceeding on a Bajaj M-80 motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-24/E-1300. The rider of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227 MFA No. 20145 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013 MFA No. 20146 of 2013 motorcycle ridden the same at a moderate speed on the left side of the road. At about 10.00 p.m. near Jogulabhavi, they met a friend by name Anand, who is the petitioner in MVC No.1678/2010 stopped their motorcycle by the side of the road, and they were talking to each other. At that time, an Ape Passenger Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-24/4808 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the petitioners. Due to the said impact, the petitioners sustained grievous injuries. The petitioners filed the claim petitions under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petitions. 4. A notice was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle. He appeared through the counsel, but did not file any statement of objections. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227 MFA No. 20145 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013 MFA No. 20146 of 2013 petitions. It is contended that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated by the petitioners colluding with the police. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and there is a breach of the policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal, clubbed all the claim petitions and, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues in common, and the common evidence was recorded. 7. The petitioners, in all the claim petitions, to substantiate their case, examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 3, examined the doctor as P.W.4, and marked 68 documents as Exs.P1 to P68. Conversely, the respondents before the Tribunal have not led any evidence; however, marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3 with the consent. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227 MFA No. 20145 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013 MFA No. 20146 of 2013 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petitions vide judgment dated 11.07.2012. 9. The petitioners, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petitions, filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petitions. He submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The said aspect was not adequately appreciated by the Tribunal, and committed an error dismissing the claim petitions. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeals. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227 MFA No. 20145 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013 MFA No. 20146 of 2013 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment, and submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish that the accident occurred on the alleged date. He submits that the Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record, and has rightly passed the impugned judgment. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeals. 13. Perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point, that would arise for consideration is, “Whether the petitioners prove that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petitions without considering the entire evidence on record?” Reg.Point: 15. It is the case of the petitioners that they met with an accident, and sustained injuries. The petitioners have produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P6. The Insurance Company has seriously disputed the occurrence - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227 MFA No. 20145 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013 MFA No. 20146 of 2013 of the alleged accident. The petitioners, to prove the claim petitions, examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 3. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to P.Ws.1 to 3 that the auto-rickshaw came towards the extreme right side of the road. P.Ws.1 to 3 stated that the auto-rickshaw driver attempted to overtake the bus which was going ahead of him, and in the process, he came to the wrong side of the road and dashed to their motorcycle. There is no whisper either in the petition or in their examination-in-chief that the driver of the auto-rickshaw attempted to overtake the bus. For the first time, in the cross-examination, they stated that the auto-rickshaw driver attempted to overtake the bus. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record has raised a serious doubt regarding the alleged accident as pleaded by the petitioners. The foundation for the case of the petitioners to establish the accident in the manner pleaded is the police records. A careful scrutiny of the police records, the discrepancies and manipulations could be seen in collusion with the police and the doctors. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227 MFA No. 20145 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013 MFA No. 20146 of 2013 The said discrepancies and manipulations have not been explained by the petitioners. The material witness was the eyewitness by name Shankarappa Maruti Ghate, and the said witness was not been examined, to prove the alleged accident, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record has rightly held that the petitioners have failed to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In view of the same, the point is answered accordingly. 16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeals are dismissed. (ii) The impugned common judgment dated 11.07.2012 passed in MVC Nos. 1656, 1677 and 1678 of 2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Saundatti is hereby confirmed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227 MFA No. 20145 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013 MFA No. 20146 of 2013 (iii) The Tribunal records, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT:BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2