- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9538 MFA No. 25674 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25674 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. VINOD M KOTHARKAR AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O. AMBEJOOG, KINNER, KARWAR-581304. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADV) AND: 1. GOVINDRAJ K TALEKAR S/O KAMALAKAR TALEKAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN R/O. KINNER, KARWAR. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 2ND FLOOR, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B MANE, ADV FOR R1, SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04-10-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.65/2011 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, I ADDL. MACT, KARWAR, 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: 2025.08.22 13:05:55 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9538 MFA No. 25674 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 04.10.2012 passed in MVC No.65/2011 by the learned I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). 2. Brief facts of the case leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: It is the case of the appellant/claimant that he was a pillion rider on the motorcycle which met with an accident on 09.11.2009, involving the alleged motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-30/L-7012. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle. He has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical treatment and he has sustained permanent disability. Hence, he filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9538 MFA No. 25674 of 2012 3. Respondent No.1 though appeared through counsel, did not file a statement of objections. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the vehicle insured with the respondent No.2 was not involved in the accident. It is also claimed that the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues. 5. The claimant, to prove his case examined himself as PW.1, examined the Doctor as PW.2 and marked 18 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-18. In rebuttal, the respondents have not led any evidence but got marked insurance policy as Ex.R-1. 6. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition by judgment dated 04.10.2012. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9538 MFA No. 25674 of 2012 7. The claimant, aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim petition, preferred this appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- claimant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2- insurance company. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the claimant met with an accident and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, bearing No.KA-30K-7012 and to prove the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, has produced a charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-4. Hence, he submits that the Tribunal has not considered Ex.P- 4 and committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. He also submits that the petitioner examined the Doctor as PW.2. He had opined that the petitioner had suffered permanent disability. Hence, on these grounds, he submits that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary, erroneous, and the same is liable to be set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9538 MFA No. 25674 of 2012 Hence, pray to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there was a delay in lodging the FIR for more than 20 days. She submits that the accident occurred on 09.11.2009 and the complaint was lodged on 29.11.2009. She submits that the discharge summary issued by the Government Hospital, marked as Ex.P-6 and that of the Tejaswini Hospital marked as Ex.P-9, do not indicate that the claimant has suffered any permanent disability. She also submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered that the vehicle insured with respondent No.2 has been falsely implicated. Hence, on these grounds, she submits that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition and the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the appeal. [ 11. Perused the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9538 MFA No. 25674 of 2012 12. The appellant-claimant has contended that he met with an accident and sustained injury. Admittedly, the accident had occurred on 09.11.2009, and the complaint was lodged on 29.11.2009. It is not the case of the claimant that he was admitted as an inpatient to the hospital. The claimant has not explained the delay in lodging a criminal case against the rider of the motorcycle. It is not the case of the claimant that he had mentioned the motorcycle number which was involved in the accident either before the medical authorities at Karwar or before the Medical authorities at Mangalore. Though the appellant-claimant was admitted to the Tejaswini Hospital from 13.11.2009 to 19.11.2009, the claimant has not explained the reason for registering the FIR ten days after the date of discharge from the hospital. During the cross-examination of PW.1, he admitted that he met with an accident when he was riding as a pillion on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-30-L-792 and not the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-30-L-7012. In view of the admission of PW.1 in the cross-examination, it is clear that the accident has not occurred due to the involvement of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9538 MFA No. 25674 of 2012 motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-30-L-7012, but it is the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-30-L-792. The Tribunal, considering the admissions of PW.1 in the cross- examination, has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, I do not find any error in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB