- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697 MFA No. 24754 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24754 OF 2012 (MV-) BETWEEN: SRI. KISAN BABU WAIFALE, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAMBARAGI, TQ: ATHANI,DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA MALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ASHOK MAYAPPA GADADE, AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PANDEGAON, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOLHAPUR DIVISION, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.Y. KALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M.V.C NO.1659/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT ATHANI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.09.2012 MADE IN MV.C NO.1659/2009 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT ATHANI AS THE SAME BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE MVC NO.1659/2009 AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.15 17:49:52 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697 MFA No. 24754 of 2012 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment and award dated 12.09.2012 passed in M.V.C. No. 1659/2009 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Athani. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: It is the case of the petitioner that, on 04.08.2008 at 10.00 a.m., the petitioner was going to Sambaragi village from his garden house on the left side of Aralihatti- Sambargi road along with his son Mahesh. When they were so proceeding near Awalekar Garden School, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/S-3373, came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the petitioner. As a result, he suffered the grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697 MFA No. 24754 of 2012 M.V. Act for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. The owner cum rider of the motorcycle appeared and filed a statement of objections denying the claim petition averments, contending that the rider of the motorcycle possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident and the policy was in force. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the injuries suffered by the petitioner are simple in nature and if the policy was issued, the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of it. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 5. The tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697 MFA No. 24754 of 2012 6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 31 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-31. In rebuttal, the respondents have not led oral evidence; however, marked 2 documents as Exs.R-1 and R-2 with concent. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition with costs vide judgment dated 12.09.2012. 8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner met with an accident, and sustained grievous injuries. To prove that the injuries are sustained in the road traffic accident, the petitioner produced the records. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697 MFA No. 24754 of 2012 said records have not been adequately considered by the Tribunal, and committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, he submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance company submits that the petitioner has not suffered any injuries in the road traffic accident, however the injuries suffered by the petitioner is by a fall from the motorcycle. Hence, the injuries suffered by the petitioner are not due to the accident, but due to a fall from the vehicle. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record, and dismissed the claim petition. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. Though the petitioner contended that he met with an accident and sustained injuries, to prove that he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697 MFA No. 24754 of 2012 has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident, he produced the medical records. From the perusal of the medical records, it clearly discloses that the alleged accident took place on 04.08.2008 but, the complaint was not lodged on the date of the alleged accident. The petitioner filed a private complaint before the JMFC Court. 14. Further, from the evidence of the doctor-PW-2, who recorded the history of the injuries, wherein he stated in the discharge card under the caption ‘clinical history and examination’’, the following words can be found. “H/O. accidental injury to the patient due to fall from the motorcycle today and he sustained a fracture to the left leg” (emphasis supplied) 15. The petitioner has not examined any eyewitness to demonstrate that the alleged injuries sustained by him are due to the road traffic accident. The discharge card marked as Ex.P-23, discloses that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are due to a fall from the motorcycle and not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697 MFA No. 24754 of 2012 due to the accident. Hence, the petitioner has failed to establish that he has sustained the injuries in the road traffic accident which alleged to have taken place on 04.08.2008. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record and the evidence of PW-2, the doctor, who has deposed that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are due to a fall from the motorcycle and not due to the accident, was justified in answering issue No. 1 in the negative. Even, the medical certificate marked at Ex.P-11 does not disclose that the petitioner has sustained the injuries due to the road traffic accident. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. I do not find any error in the judgment and I concur with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697 MFA No. 24754 of 2012 The impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is hereby confirmed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1