- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9637 MFA No. 102360 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102360 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAVITA W/O GANGADHAR MANAS AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. KUMAR SACHIN S/O GANGADHAR MANAS AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. KUMARI SAKSHI D/O GANGADHAR MANAS AGE: 07 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, APPELLANT NOS.2 & 3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 ALL ARE R/O: KURANI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI, NOW AT KAKATI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRIYUTHS. RAJENDRA R. PATIL FOR SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADVS) AND: 1. SRI. VITHAL S/O SIDDAPPA KURABAR, MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: GAVANAL, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRIYUTHS. SAFAL R. HULI FOR SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVS) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 23.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.303/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II & MEMBER, ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 13:05:20 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9637 MFA No. 102360 of 2015 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimants, challenging the dismissal of the claim petition in MVC No.303/2013 dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Fast Track Court II and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: That one Gangadhar Manas met with an accident on 01.12.2011 at about 10.30 hours and sustained grievous injuries, and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-27/T-808. A complaint was lodged on 15.12.2011, and the case was registered in Yamakanmardi Police Station Crime No.194/2011. Gangadhar Manas took treatment in the hospital from 07.11.2011 to 17.11.2011. He suffered permanent disability of 100%. During the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9637 MFA No. 102360 of 2015 lifetime of Gangadhar, he had not filed a claim petition, but after his demise, the legal representatives of Gangadhar Manas, filed a claim petition, claiming a compensation on account of injuries sustained by Gangadhar Manas. 3. The respondent filed a written statement, except admitting the ownership of the offending tractor, denied all the other allegations made in the petition. 4. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues. 5. To substantial the case, petition no.1 was examined as PW1, 2 witness were examined as PW 2 and 3, and 10 documents were marked as Ex. P1 to P10. Conversely, and Respondent No.1 was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. 6. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal, and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dated 23.12.2014. Hence, the claimants, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, filed this appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9637 MFA No. 102360 of 2015 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and also the counsel for the respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Gangadhar Manas met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/ tractor. He submits that, the petitioners have produced the charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-2. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There is no dispute that Gangadhar Manas met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. During his lifetime, he did not file a claim petition seeking compensation. Gangadhar Manas died subsequently, 10 months after the date of the accident. To prove that there - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9637 MFA No. 102360 of 2015 was a nexus between the injuries suffered by Gangadhar, and his death, the petitioners have not produced any records, and also there is a delay of 14 days in lodging the complaint. The wound certificate at Ex.P6 does not show the history of the injury in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal, considering the material on record, was justified in recording its finding that Gangadhar, who had suffered 100% permanent physical disability, had not filed a claim petition during his lifetime. The legal representatives of the deceased have no locus to claim the compensation for the injuries suffered by Gangadhar Manas. 11. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9637 MFA No. 102360 of 2015 The judgment dated 23.12.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court II and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, in MVC No.303/2013, is hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB