- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7674 MFA No. 23684 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23684 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE PRESIDENT, TOWN PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, MULAGUND, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER. … APPELLANT (BY SMT. ANUSHA SANGAMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HAZARESAB S/O HATELSAB MAKANDAR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MULAGUND, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG. 2. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., LEO COMPLEX, DHARWAD. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 25-06-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.213/2009 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, GADAG. 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:7674 MFA No. 23684 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal filed by the appellant/the President, Town Panchayat Committee is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.06.2012, passed by the District Judge and MACT, Gadag, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in MVC No.213/2009 challenging his liability to pay compensation to the claimant. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 06.08.2007 at night 10.00 p.m. in Kaul Peth, Mulagund as per the instructions of the driver of appellant, the claimant/respondent No.1 herein was opening the nut bolt below the Uddagi of the Tractor and at that time, the driver of the said Tractor rashly and negligently raised the speed of the vehicle to some distance and as a result, the backside Tractor Hydraulic water tank i.e., Uddagi fallen upon the claimant/respondent No.1. As a result, the respondent No.1 sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to CSI Hospital, Gadag and then to KIMS and upon the claim - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7674 MFA No. 23684 of 2012 petition filed by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim petition is false one as the claimant had fallen from the bullock cart but not from Tractor and it is revealed in the evidence as well as in the medical records. Therefore, it is not a case of accident but a case of “fall from the bullock cart”. Thus, prays to allow the appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant justified that the Tribunal has held that the claimant has sustained injuries as Tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-26/6703 has hit the claimant. 5. The Ex.P-6 is the wound certificate received in the Government Hospital, in which it is stated that the claimant initially was admitted to the hospital with the history of “fallen from bullock cart”, but that is struck down and over written as an “Road Traffic Accident (RTA)” just to show that it is a case of accident. Ex.R-1 is the judgment in Crl.A.No.6/2010, in which, the learned Sessions Judge has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7674 MFA No. 23684 of 2012 appreciated evidence on record in the said criminal case that the claimant herein was the complainant therein and he has given statement before the police that, he had fallen from the bullock cart and sustained injuries. Therefore, on the evidence given by the claimant who was complainant in the said criminal case deposed that he had fallen from bullock cart, thus, the accused was acquitted. This proved the fact that the claimant has converted this fact of falling from bullock cart into a road traffic accident. Therefore, the trial Court has not appreciated evidence correctly. Just because, complaint is lodged and FIR is registered that itself is not sufficient regarding proving of accident. But at an undisputed point of time, in the present records, it is revealed that the claimant had fallen from bullock cart and also in the criminal case, the claimant has given evidence in the criminal case as he had fallen from bullock cart. Therefore, all these facts coupled with evidence on its preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that, it is not a case of road accident and the claimant has not sustained injuries out of use of motor - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7674 MFA No. 23684 of 2012 vehicle. Therefore, the trial Court has committed error in allowing claim petition and awarding compensation. 6. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 25.06.2012, passed by the District Judge and MACT, Gadag, in MVC No.213/2009, is set aside. Consequently, the claim petition is dismissed. iii. The amount in deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellant forthwith iv. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RKM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 61