- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5278-DB MFA No. 101644 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101644 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN 1. SMT. SUJATA SHIVANANAD PATIL, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. MASTER MANJUNATH SHIVANAND PATIL, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. KUMARI SANVI SHIVANAND PATIL, AGE: 07 YEARS, OCC: NIL, APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT NO.1 MOTHER ALL ARE R/O: GOUNDI PLOT, SADALAGA, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591239. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI C.S. NAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. MASHNU JYOTIBA DHONKARI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: AGASAGA, TAL: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590010. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR, MUDALGI BUILDING, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO, THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.373/2012 BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND COMPENSATION MAY KINDLY BE AWARDED AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5278-DB MFA No. 101644 of 2017 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, C.M. POONACHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The above appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881, by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 06.06.2016, passed in MVC No.373/2012, by the Court of II Additional District Judge, Belagavi2, wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants. 2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 3. It is the case of claimants that on 29.07.2010 Shivanand Ramanagouda Patil3 was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/L-6220, on the left hand side of Munawalli-Naragunda road and when he reached near Akkeri 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5278-DB MFA No. 101644 of 2017 Hadh of Saundatti taluk, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/H-1730 came with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner from back side and hit the motorcycle, which the deceased was riding, causing the accident in question whereunder the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the same on 12.06.2011. The wife and children of deceased filed claim petition claiming compensation for the death of the deceased by arraying the owner and insurer of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/H-1730 as respondents No.1 and 2 respectively. Respondent No.1/owner of vehicle did not contest the claim proceedings and remained exparte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2/insurer entered appearance through their counsel and filed statement of objections specifically denying the manner of occurrence of the accident as averred by the claimants. It is further contended that the accident occurred solely, due to rash and negligent driving of deceased himself. It was also contended that there was no nexus between the injuries sustained and death of deceased. 4. Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and three doctors were examined as PW.2 to PW.4. Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 have - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5278-DB MFA No. 101644 of 2017 been marked in evidence. The representative of the insurer has been examined as RW.1. Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 have been marked in evidence. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 06.06.2016, dismissed the claim petition holding that the claimants did not prove occurrence of accident as averred in the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the claimants have preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel Sri.C.S.Nagashetti appearing for the appellants/claimants, assailing the judgment and award of the Tribunal contends that the wife of deceased lodged a police complaint, consequent to which, the jurisdictional police authorities filed FIR (Ex.P2) and after investigation filed charge sheet (Ex.P8) against the rider of offending motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/H-1730. It is further contended that the rider of said offending motorcycle pleaded guilty in the criminal case in C.C No.160/2011. It is also contended that in the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, he became disabled and bed ridden and that he had taken treatment in various hospitals as also from an ayurvedic doctor. That the doctors have been examined as PW.2 to PW.4, who have spoken about injuries sustained by the deceased in the road - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5278-DB MFA No. 101644 of 2017 traffic accident and the testimony of said witnesses have not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. It is further contended that, the medical evidence adduced, clearly discloses the nexus between the injuries sustained and death of the deceased. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Smt.Preeti Shashank appearing for respondent No.2/insurer, justifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal contends that the medical records maintained by hospital at the earliest point of time immediately after the occurrence of accident clearly discloses that deceased slipped and fell from the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/L-6220 and the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/H-1730 has been implicated in the accident. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has adequately appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and has rightly dismissed the claim petition, which ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. 7. The submissions of learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5278-DB MFA No. 101644 of 2017 8. The question that arises for consideration is, “whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition?” 9. In the claim petition, the claimants have averred that on 29.07.2010, the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/L-6220, when another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/H-1730, came from behind and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, causing the accident in question. It was further averred that immediately after the accident, deceased was shifted to government hospital, Saundatti, in an ambulance, where first aid treatment was given and thereafter referred to KLE hospital, Belagavi, wherein, he was treated as an impatient from 30.07.2010 to 10.09.2010. It is further averred that after discharge from KLE hospital, Belagavi, the deceased took treatment from various private doctors and also at Bhagai Hospital, Sadalaga before his death on 12.06.2011. 10. The wound certificate (Ex.P5) issued by KLE hospital, Belagavi, discloses that deceased was admitted for treatment of injuries caused due to “RTA slip fall from two wheeler at 7.00 p.m., on 29.07.2010 at Yargatti”. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5278-DB MFA No. 101644 of 2017 summary sheet issued by the Department of Neurology, KLE hospital, Belagavi (Ex.P10), discloses the history of treatment of deceased as “RTA - skid and fall from two wheeler on 29.07.2010 at Yargatti at 7.00 p.m.” The summary sheet maintained by KLE hospital, Belagavi, which has been annexed along with the admission record maintained by the said hospital (Ex.P15), discloses the history of treatment of deceased as “RTA skid fall from two wheeler at 7.00 p.m., on 29.07.2010 at Yargatti”. The said documents clearly disclose that in the records maintained by KLE hospital, Belagavi, it has been mentioned that claimant sustained injuries in an accident on 29.07.2010, due to skid and fall from his two wheeler. 11. It is mentioned in wound certificate (Ex.P5) that claimant was brought to the hospital accompanied by his wife. Claimant No.1, who is the wife of deceased, was examined as PW.1. However, in her testimony, she has not explained regarding the reason for occurrence of the accident as mentioned in Ex.P5, Ex.P10 and Ex.P15 i.e., fall from two wheeler is erroneous. It is clear that the entries in hospital records, as maintained in Ex.P5, Ex.P10 and Ex.P15, have been made consequent to the information given by the wife of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5278-DB MFA No. 101644 of 2017 deceased, who has accompanied him while admitting him to the hospital. 12. The complaint (Ex.P1) discloses that the same was lodged on 13.08.2010 i.e., 14 days after the accident. Pursuant to the same, FIR (Ex.P2) was registered. Thereafter, charge sheet (Ex.P8) has also been filed. However, it is relevant to note that even in the complaint there is no explanation as to the reason for the delay in lodging the same. 13. It is forthcoming from the motor vehicle accident report (Ex.P4) that the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 23/L-6220 is belonging to the deceased. There are damages in the front of the said motorcycle and there are no damages on the rear portion of the said vehicle. Hence, the damages caused to the motorcycle belonging to deceased clearly falsifies the case put forth by the claimants that the offending motorcycle hit the motorcycle of deceased from hind side. 14. The claimants have failed to adduce any evidence explaining discrepancy in the records maintained by the hospital as noticed above that the deceased died due to slip and fall from two wheeler. It is pertinent to note that there is no mention of the alleged offending motorcycle in the hospital - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5278-DB MFA No. 101644 of 2017 records i.e., Ex.P5, Ex.P10 and Ex.P15, as rightly noticed by the Tribunal. The claimants have also not examined any eye witness to the accident. It is also relevant to note that no MLC intimation has been issued by the hospital intimating the police authorities regarding the treatment to the deceased. 15. Although it is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellant that having regard to the fact that the police authorities after investigation have filed charge sheet (Ex.P8) against the rider of offending motorcycle, who has admitted to the said charges and he has been convicted in the criminal proceedings in CC No.160/2011, it is relevant to note that the burden is on claimants to prove that the accident occurred as per the averments made in the claim petition. As already noticed, the claimants have not examined any eye witness to the accident nor explained regarding the discrepancy in the manner of occurrence of accident as maintained in the medical records and the averments made in the claim proceedings. 16. The Tribunal has adequately appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and held that the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5278-DB MFA No. 101644 of 2017 claimants have not proved the accident as averred in the claim petition. The appellants/claimants have failed in demonstrating that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. 17. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the ‘affirmative’. 18. In view of the aforementioned, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1