- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9944 MFA No. 24886 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24886 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. MALLANAGOUDA S/O. GUDDANAGOUDA KALASAGOUDAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., SUSHILAVVA W/O. MALLANAGOWDA KALASAGOUDAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. UKKUNDA VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. CHANDRAPPA S/O. MALLANAGOUDA KALASAGOUDAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. UKKUNDA VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ANJANEYA M, ADV) AND: 1. MUNIRSAB S/O. NAVASAB PURTHAGERI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. HIREBUDIHAL, TQ: HIREKERUR DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE LEGAL CLAIMS MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, KALBURGI COMPLEX, DESHPANDENAGAR, HUBBALLI. 3. MR. YALLAPPA N. BHAJANTRI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. CHIKKASHELLIKERI TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2, R1 & R3 ARE SERVED) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.30 12:09:03 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9944 MFA No. 24886 of 2013 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT & AWARD DTD:06.09.2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.304/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED U/S.166 OF MV ACT. 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) 1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimants, challenging the dismissal of the claim petition in MVC No.304/2011 dated 06.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 11.03.2010 at about 3:30 pm on Sarvand-Ukkunda road, near Basavanna temple, when the original claimant i.e., the deceased Mallanagouda was returning to his house after attending the nature call, the driver of the vehicle, bearing registration No.KA-29/6233 came in a rash and negligent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9944 MFA No. 24886 of 2013 manner and hit the claimant. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to the hospital and subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of Mallanagouda Guddanagouda Kalasanagoudar. It is contended that the deceased was the only bread earner in the family of the claimants and hence, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. Notice was served to the owner of the vehicle in question. Despite service of notice, the owner of the vehicle in question remained unrepresented and was placed ex parte. 4. The insurance company and the previous owner of the offending vehicle filed, a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that there is an inordinate delay in lodging a complaint, the claimants by colluding with the police, filed the false charge sheet. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the claim petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9944 MFA No. 24886 of 2013 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The claimants, to substantiate their claim petition, claimant No.2 was examined as PW.1, examined 1 witness as PW.2 and marked 17 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-17. 7. In rebuttal the previous owner of the offending vehicle has not adduced any oral evidence. The insurance company has examined 4 witnesses as RWs.1 to 4 and marked 15 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-15. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dated 06.09.2013. The claimants, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 10. The Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claimants have explained the delay in lodging a complaint. The said explanation was not properly appreciated by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9944 MFA No. 24886 of 2013 Tribunal. He also submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that there is no nexus between the injury and the death. He submits that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. He submits that the claimants have produced the records to show that the deceased had sustained grievous injuries all over the body and produced the wound certificate, marked as Ex.P-4. Hence, he submits that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the deceased had not sustained any injuries in the alleged road traffic accident. He submits that the claimants have not produced any records to establish that the death of Mallanagouda was due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and there is no nexus between the injury and the death. He also submits that no postmortem report was produced to establish that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9944 MFA No. 24886 of 2013 dismissing the claim petition. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the death, due to the road traffic accident. 14. The claimants have contended that the deceased had met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 15. To rebut the contention of the claimants, the insurance company examined the Doctor Shivaprakash as RW.1. He has stated that the deceased approached RW.1 for treatment with the history of injuries. He had discharged the deceased from the hospital against the medical advise, which clearly falsifies the case of the claimants that the deceased sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. Further, the records which have been produced by the claimants were subsequently created. The insurance company has produced Ex.R-2, which discloses that RW.1 examined the petitioner on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9944 MFA No. 24886 of 2013 11.03.2010 for the injury caused due to fall from the ladder, an hour before the said examination. Ex.R-2 discloses that the injury sustained by the deceased was because of a fall from the ladder and not due to the road traffic accident. Further, there was delay of 1 month 10 days in lodging a complaint. Further, if the deceased was admitted to the hospital, nothing prevented the claimants to lodge a complaint. The claimants have not taken any steps to lodge a complaint. The Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding that all the documents produced by them came into existence subsequently and have failed to establish that Mallanagouda died due to the injuries suffered by him in the road traffic accident. During the pendency of the claim petition, the original claimant i.e., the late Mallanagouda died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The Tribunal, considering the entire material on record, has held that all the attending circumstances clearly indicate that the original claimant has failed to establish that he has sustained injuries due to the involvement of the offending vehicle by its driver, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9944 MFA No. 24886 of 2013 on 11.03.2010 and rightly dismissed the claim petition. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order. The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB