- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24315 MFA No. 3957 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3957 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SUBBARAYAPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O. ANJANAPPA RESIDENT OF CHIMPUGANAHALLI VILLAGE KOLALA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. D.R. SANNEERAPPA MAJOR S/O. RAMAPPA RESIDENT OF M.S. RAMAIAH EXTENSION MADHUGIRI - 572 132 TUMKUR DISTRICT. 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED II FLOOR, III BLOCK JAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 011 BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI H.C. BETTSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) * * * Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24315 MFA No. 3957 of 2014 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 3-2-2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.73 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST 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 filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 3rd February 2014 passed in M.V.C.No.73/2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge & MACT-XII, Madhugiri (for short `Tribunal'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 27th November 2011 , at around 7:30 p.m., the appellant/claimant met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24315 MFA No. 3957 of 2014 motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-06-EB-4044 near Haalu Uthpadhakara Sangha, Bhaktharahalli Village, Tumkur District. The claimant sustained fracture of right tibia bone and he took treatment at Vinayaka Hospital, Tumkur. He further contended that at the time of accident, he was aged 30 years, he was an agriculturist and milk vendor, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed for award of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 filed a written statement before the Tribunal denying the contention of the claimant and further stated that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24315 MFA No. 3957 of 2014 6. The claimant to prove his case examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 16 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-16. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, doubted the fact of accident by the offending vehicle and dismissed the claim petition by the impugned judgment. The same is challenged in the present appeal. 8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondents. 9. The claimant in the claim petition as well as in the evidence has stated that at around 7.30.P.M. due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by it's rider, he met with an accident and sustained injuries. According to his cross-examination, "on the date of accident, the police came to the Madhugiri Government Hospital and met him and at that time, one Doddaiah was also with the police. Madhugiri police station was situated about 100 ft. away from the Madhugiri Government Hospital. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24315 MFA No. 3957 of 2014 Doddaiah lodged a compliant in this regard to the police. After the accident, the motor cycle was found at the spot of the accident." In his further cross-examination, he has stated that "rider of the said motor cycle was one Lakshminarayana who was the resident of Gopagondanahalli. He got the name of the rider of the motor cycle from his elder sister." He denied the suggestion that said vehicle was falsely implicated in the case. 10. He examined one of the eye witnesses as P.W.3, who gave information to the first informant about the accident in question. In his examination in chief, he has stated that he had witnessed the accident. In his cross- examination, P.W.3 has stated that he knows Lakshminarayana, the resident of his village and as on the date of the accident, he was not at the spot of the incident. He and Lakshminarayana are the residents of the same village and at the time of accident, he did not see Lakshminarayana riding the motor cycle. He also does - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24315 MFA No. 3957 of 2014 not know the registration number of the said vehicle. He did not confirm whether the rider of the said motor cycle was found at the spot, after the accident. Later on, he came to know that rider of the motor cycle was one Lakshminarayana. From the evidence of P.W.3, it appears that he was not an eyewitness at all and he is an planted witness. 11. According to the case of the claimant, the accident occurred on 27.11.2011 at around 7.30 P.M. One Doddaiah lodged a complaint on 29.11.2011 at around 3.15 P.M. i.e. nearly two days after the incident. According to P.W.1, as on the date of accident, Doddaiah had gone to the police station and lodged a compliant. Therefore, the said evidence is not consistent with the contents of Ex.P2. 12. The claimant has produced a discharge card issued by Vinayaka Hospital and a referral letter issued by the Government Hospital, Madhugiri, marked as Ex.P11. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24315 MFA No. 3957 of 2014 In both the documents, it is mentioned that "alleged RTA is by hit and run by a two wheeler. If Doddaiah and the claimant knew the vehicle number or name of the rider of the vehicle and if P.W.3 had actually witnessed the accident, then there was no need for them to inform to the Government hospital Madhugiri as well as Vinayaka Hospital, Tumkur, that it was a hit and run case. Respondent No.2 contends that during the period of two days from the date of accident till filing of the charge sheet, claimant & others have manipulated the records and lodged a complaint falsely implicating the said vehicle. The said contention of respondent No.2 cannot be ruled out. 13. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. On re-appreciation of the evidence available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24315 MFA No. 3957 of 2014 ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed; ii) The judgment and award dated 3rd February 2014 passed in MVC.No.73/2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge & MACT-XII, Madhugiri, is confirmed. iii) Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE YN. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15