- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12096 MFA No. 100716 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100716 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BABAN S/O KRISHNA KURADE AGED: 18 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND POULTRY, R/O: MANAGUTTI, TALUK: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV) AND: 1. BHIMSEN S/O BABU KADAM, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HATTARKI, TALUK: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. IFFICO TOKOI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, SHIKSHAK BHAVAN, COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI, TALUK & DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.10.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.299/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I & MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED U/S.166 OF M.V. ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12096 MFA No. 100716 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the petitioner, challenging the dismissal of the claim petition by the judgment and award dated 20.10.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.299/2014 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I and Addl. M.A.C.T., Belgavi. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: It is the case of the petitioner that on 20.10.2013, the petitioner while returning to his home after attending his work by walk. When he came near Naganur High School, at that time, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/EC-9462 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner. As a result, he sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12096 MFA No. 100716 of 2015 3. Notices were issued to the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. Despite the service of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle remained unrepresented before the Tribunal, and was placed exparte. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, there is violation of policy conditions. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 31 documents as documents as Exs.P-1 to P- 31. In rebuttal, the officials of the insurance company have not entered into the witness box, however, the Insurance - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12096 MFA No. 100716 of 2015 Company got marked only one document with consent as Ex.R-1. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner met with an accident and the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. He also submits that charge sheet is filed against the rider of the motorcycle and the said aspect was not properly considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12096 MFA No. 100716 of 2015 11. The Insurance Company has seriously disputed the occurrence of accident and contended that the petitioner has falsely implicated the vehicle. The petitioner during the cross-examination has stated that the complainant has stated that the person who caused the accident, he himself got admitted the petitioner to the hospital and he further stated that the complainant had not come to the hospital on the date of accident with the petitioner. But in the complaint at Ex.P-1 the complainant stated that since there was nobody to look after the petitioner in the hospital, he remained in the hospital with the injured-petitioner and thereafter he gave a complaint on 23.10.2013 and hence, there was delay in filing the complaint. Further, in Ex.P-7 which is the copy of the wound certificate, there is no mention about the type of vehicle which caused the accident except writing as ‘RTA’, nothing has been described. When the Insurance Company seriously disputed regarding the alleged accident, the petitioner could have examined the eyewitness. Admittedly, the petitioner - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12096 MFA No. 100716 of 2015 has not examined any eyewitness. Hence, the Tribunal has raised a doubt regarding the occurrence of alleged accident and rightly held that the petitioner has failed to establish that he has sustained injury due to a road traffic accident and rightly dismissed the claim petition. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 20.10.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.299/2014 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I and Addl. M.A.C.T., Belgavi is confirmed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26