- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10953 MFA No. 23797 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23797 OF 2012 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. IRFAN @ IRAFAC NASARULLA MAKANDAR AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, (NOW NIL), R/O: AZAD GALLI, OLD DANELI, DANDILY, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: KARWAR NOW AT TIPPU SULTAN NAGAR, BELGAUM. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GEETHA K.M @ PAWAR, ADV) AND: 1. MR. P.B. IBRAHIM S/O SHAIKHABBA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PWD CONTRACTOR, R/O: BOLANGADI, POST: BANEMANGALORE, TQ: BANTWAL, DIST: DAKSHIN KANNADA, (OWNER OF THE 407 GOODS VEHICLE BEARING NO.19/A-82-04) 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., HAVING ITS D.O AT CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM (INSURER OF THE HERO-407 GOODS VEHICLE BEARING NO.19/A-82-04 BEARING POLICY NO. 672201/31/08/01/00006139 VALID FROM 07/01/2009 TO 06/01/2010) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.Y. KATAGI, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.08.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.390/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC. 166 OF MV ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.10 12:23:55 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10953 MFA No. 23797 of 2012 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This appeal is filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal of the claim petition vide judgment dated 24.08.2011 passed in MVC No.390/2010 by the Fast Track Court-III and Addl. MACT, Belgaum (‘the Tribunal’ for short). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 06.06.2009 at about 03:00 p.m., the petitioner was filling diesel to the loader bearing Reg.No.KA-13/M-4029 of PBI Construction Company vehicle at Kusumahalli Village. At that time, a 407 goods vehicle bearing Reg.No. KA-19/A-8204 of the said company came from Kusumalli Village in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the petitioner, as a result the petitioner sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. Hence, he filed a claim petition under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10953 MFA No. 23797 of 2012 Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming for compensation. 3. Notice was issued to the owner of the 407 goods vehicle. Despite service of notice, he remained unrepresented and placed ex-parte. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that, the claimant has filed a false claim petition. It is stated that, the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 24.06.2009, whereas the accident is alleged to have been occurred on 06.06.2009 and the complaint was lodged on 28.06.2009. Thus, the petitioner in collusion with the Police, have got registered a false case against the driver of the 407 vehicle. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10953 MFA No. 23797 of 2012 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 one witness as PW-2 and got marked twelve documents as Exs.P1 to P12. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company examined the Doctor as RW-1 and got marked one document as Ex.R1 with consent. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide the impugned judgment. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. She submits that, there was a delay in lodging a complaint as the petitioner was taking follow-up treatment - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10953 MFA No. 23797 of 2012 on account of the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. Thus, the delay occurred in lodging the compliant. The said aspect was not properly accepted by the Tribunal and committed error and dismissed the claim petition. Hence, she prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, the petitioner colluding with the Police Officials, got registered a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle. He submits that, there was delay of 22 days in lodging a complaint and he also submits that, the accident was occurred on 06.06.2009 and the petitioner was admitted to the hospital on 24.06.2009. He also examined a Doctor as RW-1. He submits that, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the liability. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10953 MFA No. 23797 of 2012 12. The petitioner has contended that, he has met with an accident on 06.06.2006, he did not admit himself in the hospital immediately. He admitted in the hospital on 24.06.2009 and further, the complaint was lodged on 28.06.2009. The petitioner has not produced any records to show that from 06.06.2009 till 24.06.2009, whether he was admitted in the hospital or he was taking treatment. In the absence of any document in that regard, creates a doubt about the accident alleged to have occurred on 06.06.2009. If at all if the petitioner has sustained any injuries on 06.06.2009, the petitioner ought to have got admitted himself in the hospital on 06.06.2009, but admittedly, the petitioner did not admit himself in the hospital on the said date. The petitioner got himself admitted in the hospital on 24.06.2009. From the perusal of records produced by the petitioner i.e., Ex.P7, it discloses that, the petitioner was admitted as out-patient in the District Hospital, Belgaum with a history of fall. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in recording its finding that there is a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10953 MFA No. 23797 of 2012 doubt regarding the occurrence of the alleged accident and also injuries sustained in the alleged road traffic accident. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly held that the petitioner has failed to prove that, on 06.06.2009 he met with an accident and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 13. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5