- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11325 RP No. 100082 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 100082 OF 2025 IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24303 OF 2012 BETWEEN: KARIYAPPA S/O HANUMAPPA WALIKAR, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. WATERMAN AND AGRICULTURIST, R/O. BILAGI VILLAGE, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL - 583 278 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.B. PATIL MADAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BELLARY, REP. THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, II FLOOR, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI, REP. BY ITS ASS. MANAGER. PIN COE: 580 029 2. SRI. KARISIDDAPPA S/O MALLAPPA LANGATAD, AGED ABOUTT 41 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NANDINI MILK AGENCY, MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11325 RP No. 100082 of 2025 HANUMASAGAR, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL, OWNER OF THE MOTORCYCLE NO.KA 37/L 4944, PINCODE: 583 281. 3. SRI. KALLAPPA S/O MALLAPPA LANGATAD AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HANUMASAGAR, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL, DRIVER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE NO.KA-37/L-4944 …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47(1) OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND IT IS PRAYED THAT, THIS HONBLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN MFA NO.24303/2012 BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT REVIEW PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This Review Petition is filed by the claimant on the ground that the claimant had not consumed alcohol while riding the motorcycle on 31.07.2007 and he was hit by another motorcycle bearing No.KA-37/L-4944 and this has come in the evidence of eye witness - PW.3. Therefore, it is submitted that the accident is due to offending - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11325 RP No. 100082 of 2025 motorcycle bearing No.KA-37/L-4944. Hence, prays to modify the order passed by this Court on 19.06.2025. 2. It is submitted that claimant has not consumed alcohol and he was hit by another motocycle bearing No.KA-37/R-4944. This thing ought to have been reflected in the complaint lodged by PW.2 who is his own brother. This Court has observed, upon perusal of the complaint - Ex.P1 that the claimant's brother himself had lodged complaint before the police on 01.08.2007 that claimant had consumed alcohol and without controlling the motorcycle had fallen on the ground and sustained injuries. This is the version given in the complaint by PW.2 who is own brother of the claimant. If PW.2 has received information from PW.3 alleged to have been eye witness that some other vehicle has caused accident then PW.2 ought to have stated in the complaint that some other vehicle has caused the accident to the claimant but the brother of the claimant has stated in the complaint - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11325 RP No. 100082 of 2025 that his brother had consumed alcohol and fallen on the ground and sustained injuries. The Ex.P1-complaint is signed by PW.2. Therefore, it is presumed that after reading over the complaint, PW.2 has put signature. When this being the fact is revealed at the earliest point of time is playing vital role in deciding the case regarding the manner in which the accident is occurred. Just because PW.3 is examined as eye witness, but his evidence is at a later version. When two versions are available, in these type of cases, the version that is prepared at the earliest point of time is important in deciding the factor regarding finding out the manner in which the accident had occurred. Therefore, this Court disbelieved the evidence of PW.2 eye witness. 3. Furthermore, the claimant has not produced inpatient records from the hospital to which the claimant was admitted. The claimant was admitted in two hospitals one at Bagalkot and one at Dharwad but the claimant has not produced inpatient records. If inpatient - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11325 RP No. 100082 of 2025 records had been produced by the claimant then under what condition the claimant was admitted to the hospital would have been revealed. But the claimant has not produced in patient records from the hospital. Therefore, this vital documents is suppressed by the claimant. 4. The above are the reasons were discussed in the order and allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 5. For the reasons above stated, there is no error apparent found on the face of the record. Hence, the Review Petition is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2