- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10285 MFA No. 23668 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23668 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O FAKIRAPPA GUNDENAHALLI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HAMALI, R/O. KAJJARI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.H. PATIL AND G.S. HULMANI, ADVS) AND: 1. NINGAPPA S/O. CHIKKAPPA BHANDARI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KAJJARI, TQ: RANEBENNUR. DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BHARATHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, CENTRAL BUILDING, OPP: VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:06.07.2013, PASSED IN MVC NO.66/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. MACT AT RANEBENNUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. 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: 2025.09.01 11:21:12 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10285 MFA No. 23668 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimant, challenging the dismissal of the claim petition, vide judgment dated 06.07.2013 passed in MVC No.66/2012 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 20.10.2011, the claimant met with an accident, and sustained grievous injuries. On the account of driver of tractor bearing registration No.KA-27/TA-6712 loosing control over the said vehicle, made the vehicles to fall down and the engine fell on the claimant. He incurred a huge amount towards medical expenses. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the account that he has sustained permanent disability. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10285 MFA No. 23668 of 2013 3. A notice was issued to the owner of the tractor. Despite service of notice, the owner remained unrepresented and was paled ex parte. 4. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and admitted the existence of the policy as of the date of the accident. It is contended that, liability, if any, would be subject to the validity of the driving licence of the driver and the other records. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The claimant, to substantiate his claim, examined himself as PW.1, also examined the Doctor as PW.2, and marked 21 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-21. In rebuttal, the official of the insurance company was examined as RW.1, and marked one document as Ex.R-1. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10285 MFA No. 23668 of 2013 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition with exemplary costs of Rs.3,000/- vide judgment dated 06.07.2013. 8. The claimant, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant, and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner has not sustained any injuries in the alleged road traffic accident. He submits that, the claimant, to prove that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle produced a charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-6. Hence, he submits that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the records. Therefore, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10285 MFA No. 23668 of 2013 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company supported the impugned judgment, and submits that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. Therefore, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. It is the case of the claimant that he met with an accident and sustained injuries. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, he produced a charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-6. The counsel for the insurance company has contended that, the charge-sheet does not disclose a rash and negligent act on part of the driver in causing the accident. The Tribunal reproduced the portion of the charge- sheet at para 9 of the impugned judgment, and from the reproduction of the portion of the charge-sheet, it has been made clear that absolutely no allegation is made against the driver for driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, which is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10285 MFA No. 23668 of 2013 a pre-requisite to maintain the claim petition. The Tribunal has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlatha Shukla and others1 and also on the judgment of this Court in the case of United India insurance Company Limited v. Anjinamma and another2. 14. From the perusal of the records produced by the claimant, it discloses that, the claimant has not suffered any injuries due to the alleged accident in question, and due to allegedly the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant has not examined any independent witness to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. 15. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly dismissed the claim petition. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award. 1 2007 (1) Civil Law Journal 120 2 2010 Karnataka MAC 407 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10285 MFA No. 23668 of 2013 16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Appeal is dismissed. ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is hereby confirmed. SD/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB