- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6396 MFA No. 21546 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21546 OF 2013 (MV-D) BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL MANAGER, IST FLOOR, NEAR SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBLI. REPTD. BY REGIONAL OFFICE, BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. - APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S. S. JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JAYAPAL S/O. JINNAPPA BADEPPANAVAR, AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DHUMMAWAD, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. MANJUNATH AVARADI, AGE 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. AT POST: TADAS, TQ: SHIGGAON. 3. SMT. DRAKSHAYANI W/O. TAVANAPPA AVARADI, AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. AT POST: TADAS, TQ: SHIGGAON. 4. MANIK S/O. TAVANAPPA AVARADI, AGE 19 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AT : POST: TADAS, TQ: SHIGGAON. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; NOTICE TO R1 & R4 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.01.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN) & ADDL. MACT HAVERI IN MVC 126/2012 AND ETC. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6396 MFA No. 21546 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This appeal is by the respondent No.2 - insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 09.01.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Haveri (for short, the ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.C. No. 126/2012. Parties are referred to their ranking before the Tribunal. 2. The case of the claimants is that on 02.02.2012 around 9.20 p.m. one Nagaraj and Manjunath were going on motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-25-EF-8868; Nagaraj was riding the motorcycle and Manjunath was the pillion. They met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the rider, due to which Manjunath fell down from the motorcycle and sustained head injuries. He was admitted to KIMS, Hubballi, wherein he succumbed to injuries on 29.02.2012 while undergoing treatment. The claimants further contended that deceased was aged about 28 years, was a driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6396 MFA No. 21546 of 2013 month, claimants are the wife, mother and younger brother, they were depending upon the earnings of the deceased. With these reasons they prayed to award compensation. 3. The respondent No.2-insurer denied contents of the claim petition and it also contended that Manjunath did not die due to the vehicle accident in question. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. There is no proximity between the injuries sustained by Manjunath and his death. Moreover, medical records reveal that he was under the influence of alcohol, which indicates that he did not sit on the motorcycle properly, due to which he fell down from the moving motorcycle and sustained injuries and there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Therefore prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal based on the rival contentions, framed necessary issues. Claimants examined one witness and got marked ten documents as Exs.P.1 to P.10. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6396 MFA No. 21546 of 2013 Respondent No.2-insurer examined RW1 and marked Exs.R.1 to R3. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider and the death of Manjunath was as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. Being aggrieved by the said finding, the insurer preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard arguments of the learned counsels for the appellant. 6. The only question arises in this case is whether the accident occurred as contended by the claimants and whether the death of Manjunath was as a result of injuries sustained in the accident? 7. PW1 is the wife of deceased. In her evidence she has reiterated the petition averments. She has produced copies of chargesheet and its enclosures at Exs.P.1 to P.8. It is true that FIR was lodged after delay of one day, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6396 MFA No. 21546 of 2013 however there is proper explanation for the said delay, which is discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. The enclosures of the chargesheet prima facie prove that said Manjunath was pillion and sustained injuries in the said accident and died. 8. RW1 is the Manager of the insurer. In his evidence he has reiterated the contentions taken in the written statement. It appears, at the instance of the insurer MLC register and summary sheet was summoned from the concerned hospital. The said documents also reveal that deceased sustained brain injury and was treated in the said hospital. The concerned treated Doctor informed the said fact to the Head of the Department that said Manjunath sustained brain injury and succumbed to the injury and to do the needful. Copy of the entire case sheet has been placed on record. It also indicates that he was under treatment in KIMS Hospital. These materials support the contention of the claimants that death of Manjunath was due to injuries sustained in the accident. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6396 MFA No. 21546 of 2013 9. The contention of the appellant is that medical records reveal that he was under the influence of alcohol. It is the case of the claimants that deceased was a pillion. According to the petition averments as well as chargesheet when the deceased was going on the motorcycle a person suddenly tried to cross the road and the rider of the motorcycle could not control the vehicle and suddenly applied brakes and in that process both of them fell down and the pillion sustained head injuries. It is not the case of the prosecution that said Manjunath/ pillion fell down during the movement of the vehicle. Under these circumstances even if it is accepted that said Manjunath was under the influence of alcohol, it does not affect the right of the claimants to claim compensation. Moreover, while treating the said Manjunath, his blood samples were not obtained and it was not sent to Laboratory to assertion quantum of alcohol in the blood. There is no legal evidence to show that he was fully intoxicated and he could not control himself and fell down from the moving vehicle. Therefore the contention of the appellant that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6396 MFA No. 21546 of 2013 death was due to negligence of Manjunath is not acceptable and there is no legal evidence to believe it. The Tribunal considered the contention of the insurer and assigned sufficient reasons while rejecting the same which does not call for interference by this Court. 10. For the aforesaid discussion, the question framed above is answered in the negative and this Court pass the following order. ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Judgment and award dated 09.01.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Haveri in M.V.C. No. 126/2012 is confirmed. Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. Send back the trial Court records with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bvv /ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7