- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29477 MFA No. 6861 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6861 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MAHAMAD SAAD AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, S/O ANSAR KHAN, SINCE MINOR R/B, N/G, FATHER ANSAR KHAN SON OF JAHEER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O RAYAVARA INDRANAGAR, GUBBI TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PATEL D. KAREGOWDA,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. V KRISHNAMURHTY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O VENKATAPPA R/O NARAYANAPPA BADAVANE KENGERI ROAD, TAVAREKERE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DIST. 2. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29477 MFA No. 6861 of 2014 KASTURI MANSION I FLOOR, ABOVE CORPORATION BANK, BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES M.G. ROAD, TUMKUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C. LOKESHWARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.A.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R 2, R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:10.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.962/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the claimant for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-17, Gubbi (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC.No.962/2011. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case of both the parties are that, on 21.04.2011, at around 3.30 p.m, the minor claimant - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29477 MFA No. 6861 of 2014 was sitting on the extreme left side of Gubbi-Chelur road; at that time rider of a Hero Honda Splendor rode his motorbike bearing registration No.KA-02-EK-5068 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the minor claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained fracture of right leg and other injuries. He took treatment as in-patient for 9 days and spent more then 50,000/- towards medical expenses. The minor claimant was aged about 3 years at the time of accident. With these reasons, it is prayed to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 has not filed written statement. Respondent No.1 has filed written statement. He denied the contentions of the claimant. He contended that the said minor boy was playing at the side of the high way. His guardian did not take care of him. Therefore his guardian was responsible for the accident. The rider of the motor cycle was not responsible for the accident. The said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2, in case of allowing the petition, respondent no. 2 be directed to pay the same. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29477 MFA No. 6861 of 2014 5. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence of parties. 6. The claimant examined two witnesses as PW-1 and 2 marked nine documents as Exs.P1 to P29. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked Ex.R1 - copy of the charge sheet. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, disbelieved the accident and dismissed the claim petition by impugned judgment and award dated 10.07.2014. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, based on the complaint lodged by the claimant's father, a criminal case was registered, investigated, and a charge sheet was filed against the rider of the motorcycle. This charge sheet was not challenged by either the owner or the rider of the motorcycle. PW-1 reiterated the averments made in the petition and, being an eyewitness to the incident, firmly supported the claimant's case. Nothing substantial was brought out during cross-examination to discard his evidence. He also produced the documents mentioned above, which corroborate his evidence. However, the Tribunal failed to properly - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29477 MFA No. 6861 of 2014 appreciate these materials and erroneously dismissed the claim petition. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and that just and reasonable compensation be awarded. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the conduct of PW-1 is highly doubtful. PW-1 himself lodged complaint against the rider of the motor cycle and when rider of the motorcycle appeared before the court, in a criminal case registered against him for the accident in question, he stood as a surety to him and got released the rider on bail. The said conduct of the guardian of the claimant creates inference that the said boy must have sustained injury in some other incident and just to claim compensation, after 10 days from the date of alleged incident, complaint was given and in collusion with the police a charge sheet was filed. The evidence of PW-1 regarding the incident is also not consistent. At one point, he states that the minor child was playing on the highway at the time of the accident; at another, he claims to have seen the boy playing on the footpath, approximately 100 meters away from the accident spot. The fact that the child was playing on a national highway suggests that the parents were not exercising proper care, and the incident may have occurred due to their - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29477 MFA No. 6861 of 2014 negligence. In attempting to prove the alleged accident, the claimant fails to present consistent and credible evidence. The Tribunal has properly evaluated the evidence on record and rightly dismissed the claim petition, as the claimant was unable to establish the occurrence of the incident. Therefore, no interference by this Court is warranted. 10. There is some merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. The Tribunal has provided valid reasons for dismissing the claim petition. The conduct of the claimant appears questionable. He filed the complaint 10 days after the alleged incident, offering a casual explanation that he was occupied with providing treatment to the victim and hence could not lodge the complaint earlier. However, it was not necessary for the claimant himself to have gone to the police station. If he had informed the medical officer or any concerned authority, they could have reported the matter to the police. Furthermore, if the claimant had voluntarily provided true information to the doctor, it would have been legally appropriate for the doctor to inform the police. It appears that the claimant may not have disclosed that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29477 MFA No. 6861 of 2014 injury was caused in a motor vehicle accident (MLC case), which likely led to the doctor not reporting the matter to the nearest police station. 11. As per the evidence of PW-1 and Ex.P1, the manner in which the incident occurred is not consistent. It further creates doubt regarding his personal presence at the spot of the incident. The Tribunal noted that the claimant himself lodged the complaint against the rider of the motorcycle. However, when the rider appeared before the concerned JMFC Court following the filing of the charge sheet, the claimant stood as a surety and secured his release on bail. It is not the claimant’s case that the accused was his relative or that there was any particular reason for him to assist in securing bail for the accused in the criminal case. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly observed the suspicious conduct of PW-1, which supports the defence raised by respondents. Considering the said fact, the Tribunal dismissed the said petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29477 MFA No. 6861 of 2014 12. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly it is dismissed. Send back the trial court records to the Tribunal along with the copy of the judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15