- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6477 MFA No. 22673 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA M.F.A. NO. 22673 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, 2ND FLOOR, MADIWALE ARCADE, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI, THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. LAXMAN HANUMAYYANAVAR, AGE 21 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND COOLIE, R/O. KADABI VILLAGE, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DT: BELGAUM. 2. MUTTEPPA S/O. KAMAPPA KULLUR, AGE 37 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NALANATTI VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT: RATNATRAYA NILAYA, 7TH CROSS, VIVEKANAND NAGAR, GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. M. DHARIGOND, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH MVC NO.1806/2010 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, SAUNDATTI, EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 15.03.2012 AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6477 MFA No. 22673 of 2012 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for both sides. 2. The insurer has challenged the judgment and award dated 15th March 2012, passed in MVC No.1806/2010, by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Saundatti (for short “the Tribunal”). 3. It is the case of the claimant that on 02.06.2010, he along with his friend Sanju Laxman Kolvi, had gone to Shivapur Village. While returning from Shivapura Village at about 7:00 p.m. they met with an accident due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/L-8809 by its rider. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained injuries. Hence prayed to award compensation. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6477 MFA No. 22673 of 2012 4. Both respondents have denied the contents of the claim petition and prayed to dismiss claim petition. 5. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. 6. The claimants examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P8. On the other hand, the respondents examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and marked documents as Exs.R1 to R6. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred on 02.06.2010 due to involvement of the offending motorcycle. The Tribunal assessed the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.2,18,260/-. The insurer, challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground that the motorcycle in question was falsely implicated in this accident to claim compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that, in the FIR, the date of accident is mentioned as 03.06.2010. However, in a subsequent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6477 MFA No. 22673 of 2012 statement given by the claimant to the Investigating Officer, he stated that the accident had actually occurred on 02.06.2010, and the complaint was lodged after a delay of two days i.e., on 04.06.2010. These discrepancies leads to inference that the vehicle in question was falsely implicated to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in some other incident. The respondents examined RW1 and RW2 to prove it and their evidence corroborate the contention of insurer. Despite this, the Tribunal failed to properly consider these facts and erroneously allowed the claim petition. Accordingly prayed to set aside the award. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents / claimants contends that the Tribunal has duly considered the contentions raised by the appellants. The very same submissions were made before the Tribunal and were rejected by the Tribunal after due consideration. It is submitted that there are no justifiable grounds to file the present appeal and the grounds raised by the appellant are not sustainable. Hence he prays for dismissal of the appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6477 MFA No. 22673 of 2012 9. Looking into the grounds of appeal and the vehement submissions of the learned counsel for the insurer, it appears that the insurer’s suspicion regarding the occurrence of the accident is primarily based on the delay in lodging the FIR and the discrepancy in the date of accident mentioned in the FIR. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has discussed these issues and considered the contentions raised by the insurer. 10. As noted by the Tribunal, the hospital intimated the Police about the accident on 03.06.2010, stating that the accident had occurred on 02.06.2010. Subsequently, it appears that the Police visited the hospital and rcorded the statement of the victim on 04.06.2010. Initially, the FIR mentioned the date of accident as 03.06.2010, however in the complainant’s further statement, it was clarified that the accident had taken place on 02.06.2010. 11. The medical records placed by the claimant also support the version of the claimant that he was admitted to the Hospital as an inpatient on 02.06.2010 at 7:00 p.m. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6477 MFA No. 22673 of 2012 The Medical Officer of the concerned Hospital was examined as PW3 and in his cross-examination, these aspects were questioned by the respondent in detail. The said evidence further substantiate that the accident occurred on 02.06.2010, as the injured was admitted to the Hospital on the same day at about 7:30 p.m. 12. The evidence of RW1 & 2 does not help to prove the contentions of the insurer. RW1 deposed on the basis of mistake of date of accident stated in the FIR. He has no personal knowledge of accident. RW1 also relied on the report of RW2, to contend that the motorcycle was falsely implicated. 13. The evidence of RW2 is of his personal opinion and not based on any reliable materials. RW2 has not ascertained the vehicle actually caused the accident and where and when such incident had occurred. On the basis of such incomplete information, the chargesheet filed by the police officer cannot be ignored. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6477 MFA No. 22673 of 2012 14. The Tribunal has taken pains in discussing in detail, the materials produced by respondent-Insurer and rightly held that they do not help the insurer to believe that motorcycle in question was falsely implicated in this accident. 15. The materials available on record clearly establish that the accident took place on 02.06.2010 and that the claimant sustained injuries due to the involvement of the offending vehicle 16. The appellant has not seriously disputed regarding quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Looking into the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it appears to be just and reasonable, and therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court. 17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court passes the following: : ORDER : (i) The appeal is dismissed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6477 MFA No. 22673 of 2012 (ii) The judgment and award dated 15th March 2012, passed in MVC No.1806/2010, by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Saundatti is hereby confirmed. (iii) Any amount of compensation deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimant. (iv) The Registry is directed to send back the TCR along with a copy of the judgment to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VNP /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4