- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5353 MFA No. 101087 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MFA NO. 101087 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SUJATHA COMPLEX, OPP.P.B.ROAD, HUBLI. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-23. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THIRTAPPA S/O. HALAPPA PUTTAKAR, AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE/HAMALI WORK, R/O. HONDADAKERI, SHIKARIPUR, NOW AT MARUTI NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SMT. HALADAMMA W/O. THIRTAPPA PUTTAKAR, AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HONDADAKERI, SHIKARIPUR, NOW AT MARUTI NAGAR, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5353 MFA No. 101087 of 2015 RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 3. KEMPANNA S/O. THIRTAPPA PUTTAKAR, AGE 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. HONDADAKERI, SHIKARIPUR, NOW AT MARUTI NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 4. MR. R. SRAVANAKUMAR S/O. RAMASAMY, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NO. 07, RCC. 206-261, S. G. MUTT ROAD, CHAMARAJPETH, BENGALORE, (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HULMANI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.08.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, RANEBENNUR, IN MVC NO.672/2012, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5353 MFA No. 101087 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This appeal is filed by the respondent No.2 – Insurer, challenging the judgment and award dated 21.08.2012, passed in MVC No.672/2012 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Ranebennur (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.03.2012 at about 5:00 hours one Halesh was sleeping near a lorry carrying bore-well drilling machine, (for short offending vehicle) bearing registration No.KA-01/MF-3969. The driver of the said lorry, without noticing the same, drove the lorry negligently and caused the death of Halesh. The deceased Halesh was the son of claimant Nos.1 and 2 and the brother of claimant No.3. He was aged about 21 years at the time of accident and was working as a coolie in the lorry and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was contributing his earnings to the maintenance of his family. Due to his untimely death, members of his family have been suffering. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5353 MFA No. 101087 of 2015 With on these reasons, claimants prayed to award compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. 3. Respondent No.1, is the owner of the vehicle has remained exparte. Respondent No.2, the insurer of the offending vehicle, has appeared and denied the contentions of the claim petitioners. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation. It is further stated that the liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the holding of a valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle. Based on these reasons, it has prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 4. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 5. The claimants to prove their case examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2, and got marked eight documents as Exs.P1 to P8. Respondent No.2 examined himself as RW1. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5353 MFA No. 101087 of 2015 and appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, awarded the following amount of compensation: 6. The insurer challenged this judgment and award solely on the ground that the death of Halesh was not caused by the user of the offending vehicle and it was falsely implicated. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as well as for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the accident did not occur in the manner stated in the claim petition. Looking at the postmortem report, one can infer that a hard substance fell on the head of the deceased, causing injuries, and not that the offending vehicle ran over the deceased Halesh. This creates doubt regarding the alleged incident. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated this fact and has erroneously awarded compensation. Therefore, prayed to set aside, the same. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5353 MFA No. 101087 of 2015 9. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that, to prove the accident, claimants examined PW1 and PW2. Immediately after the accident, a complaint was lodged and the Police investigated the matter charge sheeting the driver of the offending vehicle for causing the accident in question. There is no material to believe the contention of the appellants. The Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and rightly held that the death of Halesh was caused by the use of the offending vehicle and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. Following question emerges for determination in this appeal: “Whether the death of Halesh was caused due to the use of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. KA-01/MF-3969?” 11. PW1 is claimant No.1, he is father of the deceased. He was not an eyewitness to the incident. Therefore, the claimant examined PW2, who was a witness to the accident. He has narrated the manner in which the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5353 MFA No. 101087 of 2015 accident took place and the death of Halesh. In the cross- examination of PW1 and PW2, it was not suggested that the injuries sustained by Halesh were due to some other incident, as contended in the appeal. The insurer examined one witness i.e., RW1 and even in his evidence, no such case was made out. In these circumstances, since this case is being made out for the first time in the appeal, it cannot be considered. 12. Even if the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is considered, then Ex.P5 is to be reconsidered. It does not indicate that Halesh died in some other incident. The details mentioned in the column No.16 to 20 reveal that the deceased sustained several fractures, multiple injuries, lacerated wounds etc. If any hard substance had fallen on his head, there would not be such extensive injuries found on the body. At no stretch of imagination, the contents of Ex.P5 suggest that the death was not in a vehicle accident. The contention of the appellant insurer is devoid of merits. Based on the aforesaid - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5353 MFA No. 101087 of 2015 discussion, the point raised by this Court is answered in the negative. For above said reasons following order passed. ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned the judgment and award dated 21.08.2012, passed in MVC No.672/2012 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT, Ranebennur is confirmed. (iii) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. (iv) The claimants are permitted to file appropriate application before the Tribunal for release of the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall consider the said application if only filed, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5353 MFA No. 101087 of 2015 (v) The Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records (TCR) with copy of judgment to the tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VNP /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7