- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15428 MFA No. 103209 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103209 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. BASALINGAPPA KALLER @ BARKI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: MILK VENDOR, R/O. JOISARAHARALAHALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELANT (BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PARASAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA BARKI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: MILK VENDOR, R/O. JOISARAHARALAHALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-27/J-9705) GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15428 MFA No. 103209 of 2014 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., N.K. COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR-HUBBALLI. (POLICY NO.421700/31/2011/9890 VALIDITY OF INSURANCE FROM 14/09/2010 TO 13/09/2011) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RATNAMALA G.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF MVC. NO.2/2012 FROM LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T. RANEBENNUR AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN THE SAID PETITION AND ALLOW THE SAID PETITION BY GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER AS CLAIMED BY HIM IN THE PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15428 MFA No. 103209 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Ms. Nandini B. Somapur learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms. Rathnamala G. H. who represents Sri B.M.Angadi, learned counsel on record for respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur in MVC 2 of 2012 dated 09.07.2014. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. Being agreed by the decision taken by the tribunal, dismissing the claim petition, the claimant is before this court. 4. The matrix of the case as projected by the claimant before the tribunal is that on 13.01.2011 at about 10:30 p.m. while he was proceeding as pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration number KA.27/J.9705, the first respondent who was riding the motorcycle drove the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15428 MFA No. 103209 of 2014 said motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Subjecting the evidence to scrutiny, the tribunal dismissed the claim petition. 5. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal under an impression that the contents of Ex.P4 wound certificate and Ex.R1 MLC Extract reveals that the injuries sustained by the appellant are due to his own fall from motorbike dismissed the claim petition and indeed those documents one way supports the version of the appellant. Learned counsel submits that in those documents it is mentioned that the appellant sustained injuries due to fall from motorbike and indeed the said fall from motorbike is due to rash and negligent riding of the motorbike by the first respondent and hence the first respondent being the owner cum rider of the motorbike and the second respondent being its insurer are liable to pay compensation to the appellant. Learned counsel also states that the tribunal erred in arriving at a conclusion that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15428 MFA No. 103209 of 2014 delay in lodging complaint is fatal, but there is no such inordinate delay. 6. Per contra, learned counsel who represents respondent No.2 states that the accident occurred due to self fall of the appellant from motorcycle and thus it has to be inferred that the appellant was at fault and indeed the appellant was riding the motorcycle at the relevant time and therefore the tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition. 7. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the tribunal dismissed the claim petition mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the medical record speaks against the version of the appellant and secondly there is delay in lodging complaint to police. 8. So far as the first ground is concerned, in Ex.P4 wound certificate there is a mention of “fall from his M80 vehicle”. The same contents are mentioned in Ex.R1 MLC Extract. It is not the case of even respondent No.2 that the motorbike in question belongs to the appellant. This fact - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15428 MFA No. 103209 of 2014 itself goes to show that the contents of Ex.P4 wound certificate and Ex.R1 MLC Extract regarding the manner of happening of accident are mentioned without proper verification. As per the version of the appellant, respondent No.1 was riding the motorcycle at the relevant time. Respondent No.1 neither responded to the notice sent by the tribunal nor by this Court in the appeal. Thus he failed to deny the version of the appellant. Respondent No.2 did not choose to examine any of the eyewitnesses to the accident to establish his version that the appellant was riding the motorbike at the relevant time. It is not in dispute that basing on the contents of Ex.P2 complaint, a case was registered as evident through Ex.P1 FIR and finally a charge sheet was laid against respondent No.1 as could be seen through the contents of Ex.P6 charge sheet. This Court finds no grounds to discard the contents of Exs.P1, P2 and P6 regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. This Court is of the view that the investigation of the police and the findings given by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15428 MFA No. 103209 of 2014 police officer cannot be doubted purely basing on the contents of the medical record, where the manner of happening of accident is mentioned by a doctor or any of the hospital authorities without due verification about the genuineness of the cause given either by the injured or any of the relatives of the injured or any person who gets the injured admitted at hospital. Therefore this Court is of the view that the tribunal went wrong in placing much reliance upon Ex.P4 wound certificate and Ex.R1 MLC Extract. 9. Now coming to the delay in lodging complaint to police, admittedly the accident occurred on 13.01.2011 around 10:30 p.m. As per the contents of Ex.P1, certified copy of FIR, complaint was lodged on the very next day of the accident i.e. on 14.01.2011. The contents of Ex.P2 certified copy of the complaint makes it much more clear that the complaint was lodged on the very next day of accident i.e. on 14.01.2011 at 02:30 p.m. Therefore it is clear that within 24 hours from the time of accident, police received a complaint basing on which a case was registered. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15428 MFA No. 103209 of 2014 Also it is clear that police after due investigation laid charge sheet against respondent No.1 holding that due to his negligence in riding the motorcycle the accident occurred. Therefore it cannot be held that there is delay in lodging complaint to police and that the delay is fatal. Hence, this Court ultimately holds that the decision taken by the tribunal and the finding given that the appellant has not sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent riding of the first respondent, but due to his own fault is unsustainable. Therefore this Court is of the view that the appeal is required to be allowed setting aside the impugned award. Resultantly the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebeenur, in MVC 2 of 2012 dated 09.07.2014 is set aside. (iii) The tribunal is directed to restore the case on file, deal with Issues 2 and 3 and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15428 MFA No. 103209 of 2014 thereafter to pass award giving finding with regard to the quantum of compensation which the appellant is entitled to and from whom. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14