- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27828 MFA No. 4858 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4858 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: P.K. NAGARAJ, S/O KENJEDIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, MASON, R/O HIREBENNUR GOLLARAHATTI, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VENKATESH, S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OWNER OF TATA ACE BEARING NO.KA-16/B-6974, R/O CHELUGUDDA, 2nd CROSS, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 2. THE MANAGER, ICICI LAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., 3RD FLOOR, VAINAVI PLAZA, J P NAGAR, RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27828 MFA No. 4858 of 2015 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 1.1.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.149/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, MACT-3, CHITRADURGA, 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 filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 01st January 2015, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM and M.A.C.T.-III, Chitradurga, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.149/2014, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 16.09.2013, at around 10.50 a.m., the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27828 MFA No. 4858 of 2015 16/S-8613 and his relative Ravi was riding the said vehicle. Both were going towards Hirebennur side. At JCR Extension, in front of Green Park, the driver of the offending TATA ACE bearing registration No.KA-16/B-6974 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment as inpatient in Dr.Ambareesh Health Centre, Chitradurga and has spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No.KA-16/B-6974. Respondent No.1, though appeared before the Tribunal, did not file a written statement. Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the contents of the claim petition and denied its liability to pay the compensation. It also contended that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27828 MFA No. 4858 of 2015 the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and that it was falsely implicated just to claim the compensation from respondent No.2 and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. The claimant to prove his case examined one witness as PW-1 and marked 20 documents, as per Exs.P- 1 to P-20. Respondents examined one witness as RW-1 and marked documents as Exs.R-1 and R-2. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, held that the accident did not occur due to involvement of the offending vehicle. Hence, it dismissed the claim petition, by the impugned judgment. 8. I have heard the arguments. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the date of the accident, a complaint was lodged - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27828 MFA No. 4858 of 2015 against the offending vehicle number. The police investigated the case and charge sheeted driver of the said vehicle. This is sufficient to prove that the accident was caused by involvement of the said vehicle. Merely, because there was a statement in the MLC register, it cannot be ground to reject the claim petition. The said statement is not signed by the appellant and he does not know who gave the said statement. Therefore, on that basis, the case of the claimant cannot be thrown out of the Court. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer contended that the Tribunal in its impugned judgment, after detailed discussion of the reasons relying on the judgment of this Court, rightly dismissed the claim petition. In Exs.P-6 and R-1, it is specifically stated that the accident occurred between the "bike and bike" near Green Park, Chitradurga. In the cross-examination of PW- 1, he admitted the said fact after giving statement to the doctor. Therefore, merely the appellant contending that he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27828 MFA No. 4858 of 2015 has not given the statement or has not signed the document is not a ground to deny the said endorsement made in the wound certificate. Unless someone has informed the doctor, the concerned medical officer may not note false information or wrong information. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is not tenable and there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. 11. Upon going through the impugned judgment as well as materials placed on record, the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2 is accepted. In the document produced by the claimant i.e., Ex.P.6, there is specific reference about vehicles involved in the accident and injuries sustained by the claimant. The same fact is mentioned in the Ex.R-1. According to the claimant, in his affidavit evidence as well as in the claim petition, that the driver of the autorickshaw drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and came in high speed and hit the motorcycle. However, as noted by the Tribunal, there is no - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27828 MFA No. 4858 of 2015 damage to the autorickshaw and on the motorcycle, there was only a scratch mark on the headlight mask. Had the accident occurred as stated in the claim petition as well as in the evidence of PW-1, then, in all probability, there must have been severe damages to both the vehicles. In addition to that, the document produced by the claimant at Ex.P-6 also shows that the accident occurred due to collision between two motorbikes and the claim was made by the pillion rider (sitting behind the driver). Even the name of the rider of motorcycle is mentioned therein. There is no reference in Ex.P-6 that someone brought the patient to the hospital. On the contrary, the doctor endorsed that the claimant himself gave such a statement. This fact is accepted by the claimant in his cross-examination. It is not the case of the claimant that he was unaware about types of vehicle or he could not make any difference between goods autorickshaw and motorcycle. Even that contention is not probable. Under these circumstances, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27828 MFA No. 4858 of 2015 does not call for any interference. The involvement of the offending vehicle itself is seriously doubtful. 12. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 1st January 2015, passed in MVC.No.149/2014, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM and MACT-III, Chitradurga, is confirmed. iii) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26