- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5916 MFA No. 22333 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22333 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE OFFICE, SUJATA COMPLEX, NEAR BUS STAND, PB ROAD, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. BASAPPA METI AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. RAMPUR SITE, TALUK: SVADATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SMT. SUGALA S.METI AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAMPUR SITE, TALUK: SVADATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. 3. SHRI. PRASANNA VASUDEV GHOTAGE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TATA TIPPER, R/O. CHIDAMBAR NAGAR, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRINIVAS K.NADAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1)OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02-02-2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.2094/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SAUNDATTI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.6,90,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5916 MFA No. 22333 of 2012 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This appeal is by the respondent No.2- insurer of Tata Tipper No. KA-22 A-2166, challenging the Judgment and award dated 02.02.2012, passed in MVC No.2094/2004 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Saundatti (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that: On 16.06.2004, the deceased Rajashekar Meti, along with his other officials was proceeding to Goa Airport from Belagavi in a car bearing registration No.KA-22 C-4386. One Chambayya S/o Mallayya Revayyanavarmath was driver of the said car. Around 01.00 p.m. near Anmol Ghat, the said vehicle was met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of a Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-22 A-2166 by its driver. As a result, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5916 MFA No. 22333 of 2012 Rajashekar Meti sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Other inmates of the car sustained both simple and grievous injuries. The driver of the car lodged a complaint to Police and on that basis, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the Tripper lorry (for short ‘the offending vehicle’). 4. It is their further case, the claimants stated that deceased was working as a PWD contractor and was also a Software Engineer. He was earning Rs.85,000/- per month and aged about 29 years. Claimant No.1 is a son and claimant No.2 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. With these reasons they prayed to award compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. 5. The petition was filed against owner and insurer of the Tata Tipper Lorry as well as owner and insurer of the car bearing registration No.KA-22 C-4386, in which deceased was traveling. 6. Respondent No.2 has filed his written statement, denying the claimants’ contention. It is further - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5916 MFA No. 22333 of 2012 stated that the accident was not caused by involvement of the vehicle bearing No.KA-22 A-2166. The petitioner, in collusion with Police and owner of the Tata Tipper, falsely implicated the said vehicle to the claim the compensation. The liability of the respondent is restricted to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and holding of valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the said vehicle. Based on these reasons, prayed to dismiss a claim petition. 7. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether petitioners prove that their son Rajashekhar died on account of the injuries suffered by him as noted in col.No.11 of the petition in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 16-6-2004 at 1.00 pm on Belgaum-Panaji road, on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Tipper No.KA-22/ A-2166? 2. Whether petitioner prove that, they are entitled to compensation? If so, what amount and from whom? 3. What order/award. 8. The claimants, to prove their case, examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 19 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5916 MFA No. 22333 of 2012 documents as Ex.P1 to P19. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked Ex.R1 to R34. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to the involvement of the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-22 A-2166. The Tribunal assessed the age income and personal expenses and appropriate multiplier. Thus assessed the compensation by the impugned Judgment and award. The same is challenged by the insurer/respondent No.2 on the ground that the said vehicle was falsely implicated. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both the parties. 10. The claimants have not filed any appeal against the impugned Judgment. 11. The only question that arises for determination is whether the accident was caused due to the involvement of the Tata Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-22 A-2166 and due to the involvement of the said vehicle Rajashekhar Meti died? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5916 MFA No. 22333 of 2012 12. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there is no material on record to prove that the said vehicle was involved in the accident. PW-2 is said to be an eye-witness and he lodged the complaint to the Police. However the FIR does not contain registration number of the vehicle and in his cross-examination, PW-2 states that either he or the other two inmates of the car had seen the registration number of the offending vehicle. The claimants have not examined the so-called eye-witness or the investigating officer to prove the involvement of the said vehicle. The motor vehicle inspection reports produced at Ex-P18 and 19 do not show that the said Tipper Lorry was damaged. These facts leads to doubt about involvement of offending vehicle. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the Judgment in the case of Usha Devi and Ors. Vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/2123/2019 and mainly relies in the observation made in paragraph No.5 of the said judgment. In that case, involvement of offending vehicle for the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5916 MFA No. 22333 of 2012 accident was not proves till the insurer was made liable to pay the 50% of the compensation amount, which was earlier paid to the claimants. However, in this case, there are materials on record to support the case of claimants to believe that the said vehicle was involved in the accident. Therefore, the law laid down in the said Judgment is not applicable the fact of the present case. Under these circumstances, there is absolutely no evidence to connect the said vehicle with the accident in question and therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment. 14. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that the investigating officer, after a thorough investigation of the matter, collected the evidence and on that basis, submitted the charge sheet. The owner, driver of the vehicle or even insurer have not challenged the said charge sheet. The driver of the said vehicle was prosecuted the criminal case registered against him. The Criminal Court did not acquit him on the ground that it was a false case, but acquitted him on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5916 MFA No. 22333 of 2012 reasonable doubt. These facts are sufficient to prove that the said vehicle was involved in the accident. The Tribunal has considered these points and rightly allowed the claim petition and it does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurer. 15. Perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, PW-1 is an eye-witness. She is a claimant No.2 and is not an eye-witness herself. She has stated her relationship with deceased, age of the deceased and etc. The claimant examined PW-2, who was driver of the vehicle. PW-2 narrated about the accident and also stated that the accident occurred between the car and Tipper Lorry. He fairly admitted that he did not see the registration number of the vehicle. In his cross- examination, he has stated about manner in which the accident had taken place. He has also stated that one Kurangi and Manjunath were traveling with him in the said vehicle. He further stated that he has no idea as to whether the said Manjunath sustained injuries in the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5916 MFA No. 22333 of 2012 accident. In the cross-examination, he also stated that none of them saw the registration number of the Tipper Lorry. Relying on the said portion of the cross- examination, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said admission of the PW-2 clearly indicates that none of the inmates saw the registration number of the offending vehicle. PW2 is not competent person to say as to whether others have seen the offending vehicle number. On the basis of the same it cannot be held that none have seen the registration number of vehicle. 16. The said contention of the insurer is not acceptable. Whether the other two persons had seen the registration number of the vehicle or not in personally known to them and a third person cannot comment about the said fact. In the charge sheet, statements of the said two persons were recorded by the Police on the next day of the incident, wherein they have given the registration number of the vehicle. The said Manjunath was examined in the criminal case as PW-4, wherein he stated about involvement of the Tipper Lorry in the accident and death - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5916 MFA No. 22333 of 2012 of Rajasekhar Meti in the said accident. Of course, his evidence was not believed by the Criminal Court, since there was an inconsistency in the evidence of the two inmates of the car. On the basis of the said statement, the investigating officer, prima facie, submitted the charge sheet. The standard of proof required to prove a fact before the MACT and a criminal Court are different. Before Tribunal it is sufficient to prove a relevant fact by preponderance of probability. On the contrary, to prove a fact in a criminal case, it should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 17. As discussed above, on the next day of incident, both Manjunath as well as Kurungi gave statements to the Police, stating that they had seen the registration number of the vehicle and shown the registration number of the Tipper Lorry. Based on this, the investigating officer seized the said vehicle under a mahazar. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted. The prima facie proves the claimant’s contention that the said vehicle was involved in the accident. It is also pertinent to note - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5916 MFA No. 22333 of 2012 that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the Tipper Lorry for causing the accident in question, in C.C.No.770/2004 before the Court JMFC, Dandeli. In the said criminal case, the driver of the Tipper Lorry was acquitted by the Judgment dated 11.06.2007, as per Ex.R34. In the said case the accused was not acquitted on the ground that it was a false case or false implication of the vehicle in the said accident just to claim the compensation. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that accident had taken place due to involvement of the Tata Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-22 A-2166. The Tribunal has assigning the proper reasons answered issue No.1 in the affirmative. It does not call for any interference by this Court. 18. In view of the proof of involvement of the vehicle, owner and the insurer of the said vehicle are liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation based on the pleadings and evidence led by the claimants. The fact has not been seriously challenged and even the claimants have not filed any appeal. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5916 MFA No. 22333 of 2012 Therefore, the only question that was framed above shall be answered in the negative. For above said reasons following order passed. ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned Judgment and award dated 02.02.2012, passed in M.V.C.No.2094/2004 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Saundatti, is confirmed. (iii) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. (iv) The Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records (TCR) with copy of judgment to the tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE RHR/-Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2