- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10613 MFA No. 24351 of 2012 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. 24351 OF 2012 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1a. NINGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA DUNDANAKOPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. DAKSHAYANI W/O. NINGAPPA DUNDANAKOPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLI 1b. KUMARI ASHWANI D/O. NINGAPPA DUNDANAKOPPA, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 1c. KUMARA. AKASH S/O. NINGAPPA DUNDANAKOPPA AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 1d. KUMARA. RUDRAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA DUNDANAKOPPA, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, ALL ARE R/AT. TALLUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. APPELLANT NOS.1(B TO D) ARE MINORS, R/BY THEIR MINOR GUARDIAN NATURAL MOTHER, APPELLANT NO.1(A). …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV) AND: 1. KARABASAPPA MALLAPPA LAKKANNAVAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL, R/O. TALLUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.01 11:23:58 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10613 MFA No. 24351 of 2012 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIV. OFFICE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADV FOR R1, SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03-08-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.2662/2008 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SAUNDATTI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE 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 Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the petitioners, challenging the Judgment and award dated 03.08.2012 passed in MVC No.2662/2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Saundatti (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing the claim petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10613 MFA No. 24351 of 2012 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 15.11.2007, the deceased Ningappa was travelling as a coolie in a tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-24/T-2651 and 2652 to load the sand from Tallur village to Teggihal village. The driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashing to the KSRTC bus, coming from the opposite direction. Due to the impact, the deceased Ningappa sustained the grievous injuries all over his body. He was treated at the Government Hospital in Saundatti, and receiving First Aid, he was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubli, and he was discharged on 10.01.2008. The deceased Ningappa spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards the medical expenses. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking a compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 3. Owner of the tractor filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10613 MFA No. 24351 of 2012 petition and admitted that the petitioner was in the tractor as a coolie. It is denied that the accident occurred due to the rash, and negligent driving of the tractor, by its driver. It is contended that the driver had a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner. 4. Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the deceased Ningappa was travelling in a tractor as an unauthorised passenger, and that the owner of the vehicle had violated the policy conditions. It is also contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by its driver. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner, and although, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10613 MFA No. 24351 of 2012 6. During the pendency of the claim petition, the original petitioner passed away leaving behind the legal representatives. The legal representatives were brought on record. One of the legal representatives i.e., the wife was examined as PW-1 i.e. petitioner No.1(A), examined one witness as PW-2, and marked 81 documents as Ex.P1 to P81. The Insurance Company marked the Insurance policy as Ex.R1 with consent, and has not led any oral evidence. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide Judgment dated 03.08.2012. The legal representatives of the deceased petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the petitioner, learned counsel for the owner and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10613 MFA No. 24351 of 2012 9. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the petitioner submits that the petitioner met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries and he died because of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. He submits that there is a nexus between the injury and death of the original petitioner. The Tribunal did not properly appreciate this aspect, and committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the owner and Insurance Company submit that the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner have not produced any records to show that the deceased petitioner died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. They submits that the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner have not produced a post-mortem report to establish that the death was due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, and also, they have - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10613 MFA No. 24351 of 2012 not examined any Doctor to prove that there was a nexus between the injury and the death of the deceased petitioner. They submit that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the records, and considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. It is the case of the original petitioner that he met with an accident, and sustained grievous injuries. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner produced the chargesheet marked as Ex.P6, which discloses that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Though the legal heirs of petitioner have produced the records to show that the deceased petitioner sustained injuries in the road traffic accident; however, after five years from the date of discharge, he passed away. To prove that the death of the deceased petitioner was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10613 MFA No. 24351 of 2012 caused due to injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the legal heirs of petitioner have not produced any records i.e., to establish that the death was due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The Insurance Company has seriously disputed the nexus between the death and injury. The petitioner neither examined any Doctor nor produced any post mortem report. The Tribunal, placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court reported in the case of Kannamma Vs. Deputy General Manager1, has held that the petitioner has failed to establish that the death of the deceased Ningappa was a result of the bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident. Admittedly, the petitioner was discharged about five years back, and he died after five years from the year of discharge. Thus, there is no nexus between the death and injury sustained by the deceased Ningappa in the road traffic accident. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. 1 I.L.R.1990 KAR 4300 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10613 MFA No. 24351 of 2012 13. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned Judgment. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The Judgment and award passed in MVC No.2662/2008 dated 03.08.2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Saundatti, is hereby confirmed. SD/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/- CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2