- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2402 MFA No. 22220 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22220 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: KUMAR. YALLAPPA S/O. LAGAMAPPA KOCCHARAGI, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. (PETITIONER BEARING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL MINOR GUARDIAN-FATHER SHRI. LAGAMAPPA S/O. HOLEPPA KOCCHARAGI) AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANAGUTTI, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANTOSH B.RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. YALLAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA PUJERI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, AT: KENCHANATTI, POST: HONAGA, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INSURANCE, G/1, 799, MADUVAN, MARATHA COLONY, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.02.2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV AND ADDL. M.A.C.T., BELAGAVI, IN M.V.C. NO.1735/2008 AND ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2402 MFA No. 22220 of 2012 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) The appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 08.02.2012 passed in MVC.No.1735/2008 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimant is dismissed. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 07.10.2007, when the claimant had gone to agriculture land due to a holiday for his school, at a distance of ½ kilometer from Panagutti village, from the opposite direction i.e., from Shahabandar village to Panagutti, a rider of the motorcycle came from opposite direction in a high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant. Due to this impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. 3. The claim petition filed by the claimant was dismissed on the reason that there is no evidence to show - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2402 MFA No. 22220 of 2012 that the claimant had sustained accidental injures as hit by motorcycle as stated above. 4. Further, the claimant lodged the complaint after more than two and a half months, which led to the dismissal of the claim petition. Upon perusing the records, it is proved that the accident caused on 07.10.2007 and the compliant was filed before the Police on 27.01.2008. There is more than two and a half months delay in lodging the complaint. Though the delay alone cannot be made factor for dismissal of the claim petition, the claimant must provide evidence of the accidental injuries through medical records or other records. However, none of the records produced by the claimant establish that he was admitted to the hospital with injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 5. Ex.P-8 is the discharge card of the District hospital, Belagavi, which shows that in abdicative manner for about one and half months before he was admitted to the hospital with the history of RTA and also there is no evidence apart from complaint that the claimant was admitted to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2402 MFA No. 22220 of 2012 hospital with history of road traffic accident that occurred as stated in the claim petition by the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the claimant has failed to prove that he sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. Consequently, the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim petition and there is no ground for interference with the judgment passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 7. Send back the Trial Court Records along with certified copy of this judgment. 8. Pending IAs’, if any, do not survive for consideration, in view of disposal of the appeal. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67