- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14698-DB MFA No. 101125 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101125 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: KASHAPPA S/O. SAGARAPPA KARIYAPPANAVAR AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND COOLIE, R/O. HIRESAUNSHI VILLAGE, TALUKA AND DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587204. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VENKAPPA S/O. GOVINDAPPA BARAGI AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND OWNER OF VEHICLE KA29 TA 7800/7801, R/O. HIRESAUNSHI VILLAGE, TALUKA AND DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587204. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MELLIGERI COMPLEX, BAGALKOT 587101, INSURER OF TT UNIT KA 29/TA/7800/7801. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE SERVED TO R1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.13/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL II, BAGALKOT, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14698-DB MFA No. 101125 of 2021 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.) The appellant is before this Court in this appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short ‘the M.V.Act), challenging the dismissal order passed in MVC No.13/2018 dated 20.03.2020 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T.-II at Bagalkot, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), praying for setting aside the said judgment and award and to grant compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act praying for compensation of ₹.70,25,000/- under different heads in respect of the accident that is alleged to have - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14698-DB MFA No. 101125 of 2021 taken place on 28.04.2017 near Krishnapa Udakatti Agricultural land towards new Kaladagi village. It is alleged that, when the claimant was going in his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-29/L-1330 from his native village towards new Kaladagi village, the TT vehicle bearing registration No.KA-29/TA7800/7801 being driven by respondent No.1 came from Kaladagi side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle ridden by the claimant and caused the accident. Because of the accident, claimant became unconscious and was immediately admitted to District Hospital, Bagalkot and then referred to KLE Hospital, Belgaum wherein he underwent treatment to his injured right hand and it was amputated. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days and then discharged and again admitted to District Hospital, Bagalkot, for 20 days for treatment. Totally, he spent ₹.6,00,000/- towards medical expenses and till the time of filing of petition, he was taking treatment as an inpatient and required ₹.2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14698-DB MFA No. 101125 of 2021 Claimant was aged about 35 years, he was hale and healthy and working as agriculturist and coolie and earning ₹.12,000/- per month. He was the only bread earner of his family and his entire family was depending upon him. Claimant suffered physical, mental and financial loss due to the accident and he is leading miserable life with full of pain and sorrow. He requires at least one person's help for his routine daily work. Aforesaid vehicle is insured with respondent No.2. Hence, filed the claim petition. 4. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed his objection statement wherein he contended that he is the owner of the alleged TT Unit, but there is no rash or negligent act on the part of driver of respondent. He denied the accident itself and involvement of his TT vehicle. He further contended that driver of the TT was holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of alleged accident and his vehicle is duly insured with respondent No.2 and there was valid and subsisting insurance policy. Hence, contended that the compensation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14698-DB MFA No. 101125 of 2021 claimed by claimant is exorbitant and if the petition is to be allowed, then the liability is to be saddled upon respondent No.2. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition with costs. 5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed its objection statement wherein it contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and he was driving it without holding driving licence and contributed more negligence for causing the accident. It further denied the existence of valid insurance policy. It claimed protection under Sections 147 and 149 of M.V. Act. It is the mandatory duty of respondent No.1 to furnish particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of injured and name of the driver of the vehicle etc., which are not furnished. Hence, it is not liable to pay compensation. Further, respondent No.2 also denied the way in which accident happened and denied all other averments made in the petition. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14698-DB MFA No. 101125 of 2021 6. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has filed the additional objections wherein it has taken specific contention that the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-29/L-1330, i.e. the claimant consumed alcohol and was intoxicated at the time of alleged accident and it was a fall by himself from motorcycle and another TT vehicle is not involved in the accident. Further, the claimant was not wearing the protective headgear in conformity to the ISI mark on his head. As a result thereof, he has violated the provisions of MV Act, 1988 and MV Rules. Only to get compensation unlawfully, he has filed false police complaint and in collusion with respondent No.1 and police has suppressed the facts and got registered FIR three days after the accident. There was no free and fair investigation by the police. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition. 7. In support of the claim of claimant, claimant was examined as P.W.1, examined a doctor as P.W.2, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.64 and closed his side before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14698-DB MFA No. 101125 of 2021 the official of respondent No.2 is examined as R.W.1, got marked Ex.R1 and closed its side. 8. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that claimant has not led any independent evidence as to the history of accident and not proved that the accident happened due to collision between motorcycle of the claimant and TT unit; it is further held that because of self-fall of claimant due to intoxication, he suffered injuries. 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant-claimant has preferred the present appeal. 10. Heard learned counsel Sri Srinivas B. Naik for appellants and Sri N.R.Kuppelur for respondent No.2- insurer and we have perused the entire appeal papers including original records. 11. Learned counsel for appellant Sri Srinivas B. Naik would submit that the Tribunal committed grave error in relying only on Ex.P.4-wound certificate and coming to the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14698-DB MFA No. 101125 of 2021 conclusion that claimant was intoxicated and only because of his self-fall, the accident happened. Further, immediately after the accident, the claimant was not in a position to speak and because of that the wrong history was mentioned in the wound certificate. It was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. He further submitted that merely on the basis of history of the accident, the claim petition ought not to have been dismissed by the Tribunal without verifying other materials placed on record. Already charge sheet is filed by the police and it was not challenged by respondent No.1. The charge sheet material goes to show that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of TT unit. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal and to award Compensation. 12. Per contra, learned counsel Sri N.R.Kuppelur for respondent No.2-insurer submits that there is clear mention in wound certificate that claimant was intoxicated and because of his self-fall, the incident happened. The doctor has also made an observation that alcohol smell was - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14698-DB MFA No. 101125 of 2021 emitting from the claimant. Considering all these facts, rightly the Tribunal dismissed the petition. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Having heard the learned counsels for parties and on perusal of the appeal papers along with original records of the Tribunal, the following points would arise for our consideration in this appeal:- “Whether the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the accident was only due to self-fall from the claimant and he was in intoxicated stage at that time?” 14. Answer to the above point would be in the ‘NEGATIVE’ for the following reasons:- 15. It is the contention of claimant that the accident happened because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-driver of TT unit bearing No.KA-29, TA7800/7801 and dashed against the claimant's motorcycle and because of that, the claimant sustained injuries in the accident. It is the case of claimant that immediately after - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14698-DB MFA No. 101125 of 2021 the accident, he was shifted to District Hospital, Bagalkot and on the same day referred to KLE Hospital, Belgaum and took treatment. 16. Claimant has not produced the wound certificate of the District Hospital, Bagalkot, but, only the wound certificate of KLE Hospital as per Ex.P.4 is furnished. It reveals that claimant by name Kashappa Sagarappa Kariyappanavar aged 35 years, resident of Bagalkot was sent with referral letter from District Hospital, Bagalkot who was brought by his brother for report as to certain injuries said to have been caused due to history of self-fall from two wheeler at 08.00 p.m. on 28.04.2017. Before that he had consumed alcohol at 05.00 p.m. at Kaladagi on road. It also reveals that after examining the patient on 29.04.2017 at 02.20 a.m., the doctor noticed smell of alcohol from the claimant. 17. On perusal of FIR as per Ex.P.1, complaint was lodged on 30.04.2017 at 11.00 a.m. whereas the accident had taken place on 28.04.2017. The delay in lodging the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14698-DB MFA No. 101125 of 2021 complaint is not at all properly explained. The claimant has not examined any witness in support of his contention. Merely because charge sheet is filed against respondent No.1, it cannot be said that there was an accident in collision between the motorcycle and the TT unit. Already respondent No.2 had taken contention that there was collusion between claimant and respondent No.1. Under those circumstances, it was incumbent upon the claimant to examine any independent witness to substantiate his contention because, according to him, immediately after the accident, he was taken to hospital in an ambulance by the people gathered at the spot. Hence, he could have examined any independent witness to support his contention which is not being done by him. Further, the IMV report reveals no damage on TT unit bearing registration No.KA-29/TA7800/7801. 18. The TT of respondent No.1 is duly insured with respondent No.2 at the time of alleged accident and the driver of TT was having valid and effective driving licence. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14698-DB MFA No. 101125 of 2021 However, when the appellant has failed to establish occurrence of accident involving TT vehicle respondent No.2 cannot be made liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 19. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition, which does not warrant interference. We find no merit in the appeal. 20. For the reasons recorded above, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed by confirming the judgment and award in MVC No.13/2018 dated 20.03.2020 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T.-II at Bagalkot. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE Vmb, CT-CMU, LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30