Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 49869 (KAR)

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER v. MALLIKARJUN ADOPTED S/O SWAMY @ SHIKARESHWARA

MFA/24189/2012 · 2025-06-20

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7880 MFA No. 24189 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24189 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BELLARY, R/BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBLI. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI MALLIKARJUN ADOPTED S/O SWAMY @ SHIKARESHWARA, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR R/BY HIS GUARDIAN AND UNCLE JAMBAN GOUDA S/O NAGANGOUDA, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: SHANAVASAPURA VILLAGE, TQ: SHIRAGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY. 2. P. SHASHIDHAR S/O RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, OWNER OF THE MOTOR BIKE NO.KA34/W6850, R/O: S.R. COMPOUND, S.N. PET, BELLARY. … RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1025/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL-IX, BELLARY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7880 MFA No. 24189 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 30.01.2012 passed in MVC No.1025/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Bellary (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case is that on 15.08.2010 at about 7.30 a.m., while deceased Swamy @ Shikareshwara, who was working as a Priest in a temple, while crossing the road, opposite of Raymond Show Room, near Devi Nagar, on Bellary-Hospet road, at that time, respondent no.1, being the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-34/W-6850, drove the same with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased Swamy @ Shikareshwara. As a result of it, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Bellary, wherein, while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7880 MFA No. 24189 of 2012 sustained in the road traffic accident. Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted that the claimant is not an adoptive son of deceased Swamy @ Shikareshwara. After the death of deceased Swamy @ Shikareshwara, the claimant has filed false claim petition claiming that he is the adoptive son of deceased Swamy @ Shikareshwara. But his natural father is one H.Shankargouda, as it is proved from his school records. The claimant has not produced any evidence to prove that he is the adopted son of the deceased Swamy @ Shikareshwara. Therefore, the claim made is false one. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and award passed by the trial court. 5. Though the notice is served to respondents, but remained absent. 6. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition by holding that the claimant is the adopted son of deceased Swamy @ Shikareshwara and accordingly awarded compensation. But when the claimant is claiming to be the adopted son of deceased Swamy @ Shikareshwara, it is burden - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7880 MFA No. 24189 of 2012 on the claimant to prove that he is the adopted son of deceased Swamy @ Shikareshwara. But the claimant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that he is the adopted son of deceased. Mere oral evidence is not sufficient to prove the case. 7. During the pendency of the appeal, this court has permitted to produce additional evidence before the additional registrar judicial and accordingly the appellant has led additional evidence and produced marked documents i.e., Ex.R2, Ex.R3 And Ex.R4, which are the copies submitted by the appellant to the Public Inform Officer/Principal Junior College, Bellary. True copy of the Transfer Certificate and SSLC Marks Card of the claimant is also produced. Thus, these documents proved that the father of claimant is one Sri.H. Shankargouda, but not the deceased Swamy @ Shikareshwara. Therefore, the claimant has not discharged his burden to prove that he is the adopted son of deceased Swamy @ Shikareshwara. 8. Hence, the Tribunal ought not to entertain the claim petition, since there is no evidence regarding proving of the claimant that he is the adoptive son of Deceased Swamy @ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7880 MFA No. 24189 of 2012 Shikareshwara. Therefore, the claimant is not the legal representative of deceased Swamy @ Shikareshwara. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 9. Hence I proceeds to pass the following: Order a) The appeal is allowed. b) The judgment and award dated 30.01.2012 passed in MVC No.1025/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Ix, Bellary, is set aside. c) The amount in deposit made by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. d) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK List no.: 1 sl no.: 70 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7880 MFA No. 24189 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER VS. MALLIKARJUN ADOPTED S/O SWAMY @ SHIKARESHWARA AND ANOTHER] 10.07.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL ORDER ON ‘BEING SPOKEN TO’ This Court on 20.06.2025 has disposed of the appeal setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. In the operative portion of the judgment, due to typographical error, it is typed that the amount in deposit made by the appellant/Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal instead of refunding the same to the appellant/insurer. Therefore, it is ordered that the amount in deposit by the appellant/insurance company shall be refunded to it. This order shall be read as part and parcel of the judgment dated 20.06.2025. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1