- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37214 MFA No. 3462 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3462 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR.PRASHANTH SHETTY S/O SADASHIVA SHETTY, AGED 34 YEARS, R/AT PERIADABAIL HOUSE, KOLNADU VILLAGE, SALETHUR POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT PIN-574 243 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PREETHESH S/O SADASHIVA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ACCOUNTANT (WEST COST MOTORS) R/AT PERLADABAIL HOUSE, KOLNAODU VILLAGE, SALETHUR POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT PIN-574 243 2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, 414, VEERA SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDDI VINAYAKA TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI REP BY ITS MANAGER. PIN-400 025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1- SERVED) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37214 MFA No. 3462 of 2020 THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO. 570/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the dismissal of the MVC.No.570/2015 dated 08.09.2017 by IV Additional District Judge, & MACT Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore the claimant is before this court. 2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injury sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 22.08.2014, the claimant was travelling as pillion Rider in a motorcycle. When they reached near Thiblepadavu, Konaje the rider i.e., 1st respondent was riding the same at high speed. He lost control over the motorcycle and as a stray dog suddenly came he lost control over the motorcycle and the same was capsized and fell. Due to that the claimant as well as the rider fell from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37214 MFA No. 3462 of 2020 hospital wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 22.08.2014 to 27.08.2014. 3. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition, while dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal had observed that as per the evidence of PW-1 the accident has occurred while he was proceeding as a pillion rider and he has not informed to the hospital authorities about the accident and he was unconscious. The discharge summary Ex.P.8 discloses that “patient was apparently alright till 22.08.2014 morning when he had a fall due to slippage of bike and sustained closed injury to his right knee. No history of unconsciousness, omitting/conversion and RTA and earlier operated THR same side due to RTA”. Ex.P.14 discloses the same contents of discharge summary and initial assessment form at page No.3 discloses that “alleged fall from the bike following the bike skid when a dog trespassed at Kuthar around 09.00 a.m sustained injuries on the right knee” and further discloses about injury to the patient. It reveals at page No.4 “that the patient was apparently alright till morning when he had a fall due to a slippage of bike and sustained close injury to his right knee”. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37214 MFA No. 3462 of 2020 4. The Tribunal has observed that the statement of the claimant before the police has no whisper about dog crossing the road and he had fallen from the motorcycle. The Tribunal also referred to the evidence of PW.3 that the information provided by the patient or the patients relative will be reflected in the case sheet and in the MLC register and the version of PW.1 that he has not given statement as per Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.8 cannot be accepted. The Tribunal had observed that the medical records are contrary to the case of the petitioner and accordingly the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that he is a pillion rider and he had sustained injuries and he further submits that if an opportunity is given he would be examining R-1, who is a rider. The Tribunal without considering all these factors had dismissed the claim petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ insurance company submits that Tribunal had rightfully dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37214 MFA No. 3462 of 2020 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the order of the Tribunal. It is the case that claimant was a pillion rider, none of the documents do not disclose that he is a pillion rider. According to the claimant, both the rider and the pillion rider fell down. They sustained grievous injuries, respondent No.1 who is the rider of the vehicle was not examined along with the claimant, he was not admitted in the hospital. With regard to the fact about his stray dog coming in between, it was a story later developed by the claimant and considering all these aspects, the Tribunal had rightly held that the claimant has failed to prove his case with regard to the fall from the bike and hence this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. i. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37214 MFA No. 3462 of 2020 iii. No costs. iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1