- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12830 MFA No. 101845 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101845 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHIVANAND S/O. HANMANTH UMRANI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT. SONNA VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI DIST: BAGALKOTE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ABHISHEK BARIGIDAD, ADV. FOR SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MANJU S/O. HANAMANTGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT: SONNA VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER TATA A/G GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PENNISULA CORPORATE PARK NICHOLAS PIRAMAL TOWER 9TH FLOOR, GANPARAO KADAM MARG, LOWER POREL, MUMBAI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BEING AWARDABLE INFAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NO.VII, BILAGI IN MVC NO.466 OF 2011 DATED 05.07.2013 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12830 MFA No. 101845 of 2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal of the claim petition vide judgment and award dated 05.07.2013 passed in MVC No. 466 of 2011 by the learned MACT-VII, Bilagi (‘Tribunal’ for short). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 07.05.2011 at 21:15 hours, the petitioner along with his relative Manjunath, was returning back to his village from Bilagi on Sonna Bilagi road on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-29/S-1913 as a pillion-rider. When they came near Sonna Village, the rider of the motorcycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, and caused the accident. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12830 MFA No. 101845 of 2014 for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. The owner of the motorcycle appeared through the counsel, but did not file a statement of objections. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the vehicle has been falsely implicated and there was a delay in lodging the complaint. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined the Doctor as PW-2 and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. In rebuttal the Insurance Company examined two witnesses as RWs-1 and 2 and marked 6 documents as Exs.R1 to R6. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12830 MFA No. 101845 of 2014 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide judgment and award dated 05.07.2013. 8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of claim petition, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner, to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, produced a copy of the charge sheet marked as Ex.P6. The Tribunal has not adequately considered the charge sheet and committed an error in recording a finding that the petitioner has failed to prove that the alleged accident occurred due to the rash negligent riding of the motorcycle. Hence, on this ground, he submitted the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary, erroneous, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12830 MFA No. 101845 of 2014 same is liable to be set aside, and accordingly, prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment and award, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The point that would arise for consideration is, Whether the petitioner proves that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle without properly appreciating the evidence on record? 13. The petitioner contended that, he met with an accident on 07.05.2011 at about 21:15 hours and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. Although the alleged accident - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12830 MFA No. 101845 of 2014 occurred on 07.05.2011, the complaint was filed after three days i.e., on 10.05.2011. The Insurance Company has seriously disputed regarding the occurrence of accident. The petitioner, in order to prove that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, has not examined any eye-witnesses to prove the same. It is contended that, the petitioner was a pillion rider on the motorcycle and from the perusal of the records, it is clearly discloses that he himself fell down from the motorcycle and sustained injuries, and not due to the alleged accident resulted by the rash riding by the rider of the motorcycle. Thus, the petitioner has failed to prove that the injuries were caused due to the alleged accident. Therefore, the Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, was justified in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove that the accident had occurred due to the rash negligent riding of the motorcycle. I do not find any error in the impugned - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12830 MFA No. 101845 of 2014 judgment. In view of the above discussion, the point is answered accordingly. 14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed; ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed; iii. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17