- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4472 MFA No. 20491 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20491 OF 2012 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHAVAPUR, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. IRAVVA W/O. SAKREPPA DODDAWAD, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. CHULAKI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SHRI. IRAPPA S/O. DODDASHIDDAPPA GODIKATTI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR, R/O. VANAHALLI, POST: HEBBALLI, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. 3. SHRI. NINGAPPA DYAMANNA GOUDAR, AGE MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. TADASINAKOPPA, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. NAVEEN B. CHATRAD, ADV. FOR R2; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR R. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R3) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF M.V. ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.125/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE SR. DN. AT DHARWD AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.09.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.125/2009 BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE SR. DN. AT DHARWAD AND ETC. THIS 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:4472 MFA No. 20491 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This appeal is filed by the respondent No.2 challenging judgment and award dated 28.09.2013 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in MVC No.125/2009. 2. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that: The deceased Manjunath was son of the claimant and he met with an accident on 03.12.2008 at Tadsinakoppa village by user of Tractor bearing registration No.KA-25/T-0020 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. Deceased was aged about 19 years and working as coolie and earning Rs.4,500/- per month and contributing his income to the family. Claimant is mother of deceased, filed petition to claim compensation. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4472 MFA No. 20491 of 2012 4. Respondent No.2-the insurer, filed written statement denying the contentions of the claimant and contended that the accident was not taken place as stated in the claim petition. The deceased was negligently, sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and slipped at the time of running of the vehicle. Due to his negligence, he fell down and sustained injuries. In view of the said reasons the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. It is also contended that liability of the respondent No.2 is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving license by driver of the vehicle. 5. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: “1) Whether the petitioner proves to be the only dependant of deceased Manjunath? 2) Whether petitioner proves that on 3/12/2008 at the burial ground on Itigatti road the tractor bearing No.K.A.25/T 0020 was driven in high speed rash and negligent manner and dashed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4472 MFA No. 20491 of 2012 pedestrian Manjunath causing RTA and resulted in his death? 3) Whether R.2 proves that deceased Manjunath was un-authorised passenger in tractor bearing No.KA 25/T 0020 at the time of RTA? 4) From whom and how much the petitioner is entitled for just and fair compensation? 5) What order of decree?” 6. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of claimant as PW-1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P8. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and got marked Exhibits R1 to R4. 7. After hearing both sides and appreciating the materials available on record, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the claimant and awarded compensation of Rs.3,44,000/-. The Tribunal held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Said judgment is challenged in this appeal by insurer. 8. The main contention of the appellant is that the accident had not taken place as contended in the charge sheet or the claim petition. According to Ex.P2, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4472 MFA No. 20491 of 2012 deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and when the driver of the tractor drove it over a ditch, the deceased lost balance and fell down and sustained injuries. Traveling on the mudguard is not permissible and moreover the liability of the person traveling on the mudguard is not covered under the insurance policy. Hence insurer is not liable to pay compensation. In support of said contention, learned counsel for appellant relied upon the Judgment of Full Court in the case of Gadhilingapa @ Gadhilingappa and Another vs. K.Guleppa and Others1. 9. It is further contended that, subsequently at the time of filing the charge sheet, the investigating officer changed scenario of the accident and it is stated in the further statement of complainant as well as other witnesses that the victim was going by walk at the side of the road when driver of the tractor dashed against him and caused the accident. In view of the reasons stated in 1 ILR 2021 KAR 3377 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4472 MFA No. 20491 of 2012 the complaint, claimant is not entitled for compensation to be paid by the respondent No.2. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that after investigating of the matter, the charge sheet was filed and the complaint mistakenly stated before the police, at the time of lodging the complaint, that the deceased was sitting on the engine of the tractor. On the next day, when it was noticed by the complainant, he has given further statement, wherein he has stated that the victim was standing at the side of the road. Due to his old age, he could not see properly and thought that victim was sitting on the engine of the vehicle. On the basis his further statement, the investigating officer recorded the examined witnesses and on conclusion of the investigation, charge sheeted the driver of the vehicle. Respondent No.2 did not challenge the said charge sheet. In support of said contention, learned counsel for respondent relied upon the Judgment in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Smt.Lakshmamma - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4472 MFA No. 20491 of 2012 and others2. He further submits that the Tribunal considered the appellant’s contentions and rightly rejected the same. There are no reasons to interference with the said findings. 11. The following questions are arises for the determination. (i) Whether the Tribunal erred in not accepting the contention of the appellant-respondent No.2 that the accident had taken place when the deceased was traveling on the mudguard of the tractor, as stated in the FIR? (ii) What order? 12. The above question is answered in the negative. 13. The case of the parties is stated in the above paragraphs. Insurer challenged the judgment of Tribunal 2 2008 Kant M.A.C.145 (Kant) - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4472 MFA No. 20491 of 2012 on the basis of Ex.P2, i.e, statement of Shivappa. According to his earlier statement dated 03.12.2008, around 8.00 p.m. an unknown person was sitting on the engine of the tractor and driver of the said tractor was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The said statement was given to police was around 2.00 p.m. on 03.12.2008. On the next date, he gave additional statement before very same investigating officer, stating that, at the time of lodging the complaint, he has stated that ‘at the time of the accident deceased boy was sitting on the engine, at the side of the driver. But in fact he was standing at the side of the road.’ Due to defects in his vision, he mistakenly stated in the complaint that the said boy was sitting on the engine of the tractor. Thereby, he corrected his previous statement given before the investigation officer. The investigation officer, after examined the witnesses, submitted a charge sheet. Ex.P7 appears to be incomplete. List of witnesses, examined by the investigating officer are not enclosed in the said charge sheet. Insurer accepting - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4472 MFA No. 20491 of 2012 part of statement of complainant and cleverly ignoring his further clarificatory statement 14. It is settled principle of law that the FIR is not encyclopedia. According to Ex.P2, age of the complainant was 64 years and he has stated that after completion of his work in his land, he was returning home. Nowhere in Ex.P2 is it mentioned about the distance between the spot of the accident and spot wherein he was standing at the time of the incident. Considering these facts, the further statement given by complainant that he could not see the properly due to a defect in his vision cannot be ruled out. 15. It is not brought out from the charge sheet that complainant was a friend or relative of the deceased. There was no reason for him to give a false explanation on the next date, after filing the complaint. Under these circumstances, only on the basis of a story sentence in Ex.P2, it cannot be held that the final report filed by the investigating officer, after a complete investigation of the matter, was incorrect and inconsistent and not believable. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4472 MFA No. 20491 of 2012 16. Respondent No.2 did not produce any other documents or any other evidence to believe that contents of the charge sheet are incorrect. Under such circumstances, the said contention of the appellant is not tenable. In the case of Gadhilingapa @ Gadhilingappa (supra) facts are different. If charge sheet had been filed against driver of the vehicle as stated in Ex.P2, then the insurer may not have been liable to pay compensation. But in the present case, the charge sheet shows that the victim was standing at the side of the road and driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in the negligent manner and dashed against him. Under such circumstances, he was third party and the said vehicle was insured with appellant. Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay compensation. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that since the charge sheet was not challenged by the appellant herein, as held in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. (supra), wherein it is held that if the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4472 MFA No. 20491 of 2012 charge sheet is not challenged, the insurer cannot deny their liability. However, the facts of the present case are totally different from the facts of that case. 18. The facts of the present accident is not in dispute, but the manner in which the accident took place is disputed. In the referred case, the fact of the accident itself was disputed and it was contented that the vehicle was falsely implicated just to claim compensation. Considering those facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. (supra) held that, in such an event, if the insurer did not challenge the charge sheet, it cannot deny his liability. Therefore it has no relevance to the facts of the present case. 19. There is no serious dispute in respect of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On going through the assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal, it is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. For the aforesaid discussion, I answer the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4472 MFA No. 20491 of 2012 above said question in the ‘Negative’ and proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned Judgment and award dated 28.09.2011 in MVC No.125/2009 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad is hereby confirmed. (iii) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with copy of the Judgment to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE RHR /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4