- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9267 MFA No. 24753 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24753 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHIVANAND BHARAMANNA JALIHAL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MADABHAVI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRIYUTHS. RAMACHANDRA MALI AND MOHAN A HIREKODI, ADVS) AND: 1. SRI. RAVASAHEB MALLAPPA NIVALAGI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MADABHAVI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SANGAM BUILDING, S.S FRONT ROAD, BIJAPUR - 586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. R MANE, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED & REPRESENTED) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30-06-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.139/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AT ATHANI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.01 11:27:26 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9267 MFA No. 24753 of 2012 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the appellant, challenging the judgment and award dated 30.06.2012 passed in MVC No.139/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court at Athani. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: On 03.09.2008, an accident involving the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-23/U-1169 near Basaveshwar Circle, Madabhavi Road took place in which the appellant sustained grievous injuries, and suffered the physical disability. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in a road traffic accident. It is contended that the appellant was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9267 MFA No. 24753 of 2012 aged bout 28 years and running a photo studio, and earning Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- p.m. and also from agriculture and selling milk, he used to earn Rs.2,00,000/- p.a. Due to the permanent disability, he is not in a position to do any work, as he was doing before the accident. Hence, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their statement of objections. The respondents have denied the averments made in the claim petition, and also denied that the appellant has sustained the injuries in the accident, resulting in his permanent disability. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the respondents. 4. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and additional issues. 5. The appellant, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, to prove his disability, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 35 documents as Exs.P1 to P35. The respondents did not lead any oral - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9267 MFA No. 24753 of 2012 evidence. However, they marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition with costs of Rs.2,000/- vide judgment dated 30.06.2012. The appellant, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition in MVC No.139/2011, has filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has met with an accident, and has sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to the hospital from 03.09.2008 to 13.09.2008. He submits that after recovering from the injuries, the appellant lodged a complaint, but the police refused to register it. Thereafter, the appellant filed a private complaint in P.C.No.146/2008. He submits that the criminal court passed an order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the police registered the FIR and, after - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9267 MFA No. 24753 of 2012 investigation, filed a charge sheet, which is marked as Ex.P9. The said aspect was not adequately appreciated by the Tribunal, and it committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. He submits that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary, and perverse, and contrary to the evidence on record. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the records produced by the appellant are created in collusion with the police. He submits that there is a delay in lodging the complaint. He submits that in the discharge card, i.e., Ex.P10, is not at all signed by the concerned doctor of the hospital. P.W.1 during the cross- examination admits that he has not made any attempt to lodge the complaint immediately after discharge. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellant has failed to establish that he has sustained grievous injuries in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9267 MFA No. 24753 of 2012 road traffic accident. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. The point that would arise for my consideration is: i) Whether the appellant has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal? Reg.Point No.(i): 10. It is the case of the appellant that he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on 03.09.2008. The appellant was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient from 03.09.2008 to 13.09.2008. After being discharged from the hospital, the appellant made an attempt to file a complaint with the police, but the police refused to receive the complaint. Thereafter, the appellant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. on the file of the Court of the JMFC, Athani in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9267 MFA No. 24753 of 2012 P.C.No.146/2008. The trial court referred the case to the PSI, Athani for investigation. After investigation, the police registered the FIR as per Ex.P2. The criminal case was registered in Crime No.399/2008 against one Umesh Navalagi, who is said to be the rider of the motorcycle for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC. Admittedly, the police have not given any explanation for not securing the local panchas for conducting the spot panchanama. The appellant has not examined any eyewitness to the alleged accident, and the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant sustained injuries, somewhere and filed the complaint in collusion with respondent No.1 and the police only with an intention to get the compensation from respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have seriously disputed the occurrence of the accident. The burden is on the appellant to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. The appellant, except examining himself as P.W.1, has not examined any - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9267 MFA No. 24753 of 2012 eyewitness to the alleged accident. The Tribunal, considering the entire material on record, has rightly held that the appellant has failed to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-23/U-1168 by its rider, and rightly dismissed the claim petition. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.(i) in the negative, and accordingly, proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 30.06.2012 passed in MVC No.139/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court at Athani is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39