- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10738 MFA No. 23213 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23213 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. HANNAPPA MUREPPA ICHARI AGED 35 YEARS, R/O: BALAWAD, TQ : ATHANI, DIST : BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B MANE, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. LAKKANNA BABALLI BASAGOUDAR AGED 34 YEARS, R/O: NANDGAON, TQ : ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. (OWNER OF MAHINDRA TRACTOR BEARING REG.NO.MH-09/TRH-245) 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD. GANAPATI KRUPA, 614/G/A, E WRAD, LANE – SHAHAPUR, KOLHAPUR - 416001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1760/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, ATHANI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT, 1994. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.01 11:22:25 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10738 MFA No. 23213 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment and award of the claim petition, of dismissal dated 02.02.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.1760/2006 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Athani. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 28.05.2005, the petitioner along with his wife was traveling to their relatives’ house in a rickshaw and after getting down from the rickshaw, they were proceeding towards their relatives’ house on Athani-Nandagaon road. At that time, the driver of Mahindra tractor bearing registration No.MH-09/TRH-245 came from Nandagaon side, by driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the petitioner. As a result, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10738 MFA No. 23213 of 2013 petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Dr. Sudhir Shaha Hospital, Miraj. The petitioner spent huge amount towards medical and other expenses. The petitioner field a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 3. The owner of the vehicle appeared through the counsel but did not file a statement of objections. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and the injuries sustained by the petitioner. It is admitted that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the insurance company. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10738 MFA No. 23213 of 2013 4. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 5. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 and marked 28 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-28. The officials of the respondent-insurance company have not let any oral evidence but got marked two documents with consent as Exs.R-1 and R-2. 6. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dated 02.02.2013. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for respondent No.2- the insurance company. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the petitioner met with an accident and sustained grievous - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10738 MFA No. 23213 of 2013 injuries. He submits that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was convicted in the said criminal case. He further submits that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. He also submits that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the petitioner has not examined his wife and his relatives viz., Nagappa Langoti and Devappa Langoti who were said to be called at the time of accident at the accident spot. He also submits that admittedly, the insurance company has not challenged the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle and that the driver of the offending vehicle pleaded guilty and he was convicted. In support of the petitioner’s contention, he has produced certified copy of the order sheet in C.C.No.806/2007 marked as Ex.P-28. Learned counsel submits that the respondent-insurance company has not let any rebuttal evidence. In the absence of any - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10738 MFA No. 23213 of 2013 rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition, on the contrary, dismissed the claim petition. He submits that if the matter is remitted to the Tribunal, the petitioner will examine his wife and his relatives viz., Nagappa Langoti and Devappa Langoti. He submits that he has also produced the disability certificate marked as Ex.P-24 and also examined the doctor as PW-2. The Tribunal did not consider these aspects and proceeded to dismiss the claim petition. He submits that the judgment of dismissal passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the records. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal and to remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- insurance company submits that the petitioner has failed to prove that he has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident and due to the acts of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. He also submits that sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner to lead evidence but he has not led the evidence of eyewitnesses. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10738 MFA No. 23213 of 2013 Thus, the Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 11. There is no dispute that the petitioner met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was admitted to the hospital for 27 days and thereafter he has taken follow up treatment. Thus, there was a delay in lodging the complaint. Further the petitioner filed a private complaint. The copy of the private complaint is marked as Ex.P-1. After presenting the private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate issued a direction to the Police authorities under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Police after receiving the requisition, issued FIR which is marked as Ex.P-2. The Police after the completion of investigation, filed a charge sheet marked as Ex.P-6, which discloses that the accident occurred due to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10738 MFA No. 23213 of 2013 the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver of the offending vehicle pleaded guilty in the criminal case in C.C.No.806/2007. The Tribunal without considering the documents produced by the petitioner has opined that the petitioner has not examined his wife who was present at the time of accident and the relatives of the petitioner viz., Nagappa and Devappa who were called to the accident spot. An adverse inference drawn by the Tribunal against the petitioner for non-examination of wife of the petitioner and the relatives of the petitioner and a finding that the petitioner has failed to prove the accident in question, cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner has not examined his wife and his relatives without looking into the documents produced by the petitioner. 12. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the petitioner sustained injuries and a charge sheet is filed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10738 MFA No. 23213 of 2013 against the driver of the offending vehicle and also the petitioner examined the doctor as PW-2, who opined that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability. The records produced by the petitioner were not properly appreciated by the Tribunal and there is no rebuttal evidence by the insurance company. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that if the matter is remanded, an opportunity may be provided to lead rebuttal evidence. Hence, as per the above discussion, the matter requires a fresh consideration by the Tribunal. 13. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment dated 02.02.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.1760/2006 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Athani is set aside. (iii) Claim petition in M.V.C.No.1760/2006 is restored to its original file. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10738 MFA No. 23213 of 2013 (iv) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 08.10.2025 without awaiting further notice. (v) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to examine his wife and his relatives and the respondent- insurance company is also at a liberty to lead the rebuttal evidence. (vi) The Tribunal, after recording the evidence, shall pass the necessary judgment in accordance with law. (vii) All contentions of the parties are kept open. (viii) The Office is directed to transmit the records, to the Tribunal. SD/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15