- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9280 MFA No. 23346 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23346 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMLINGKHIND GALLI, NO.1633, SHAVANI CHAMBERS, BELAGAVI, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR THIRD PARTY HUB OFFICE, SRINATH COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580029, REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R MANE, ADV) AND: 1. RIYAZ S/O NAZEER AHAMED KAZI, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: SECURTY GUARD R/O: IVTH CROSS, AZAD NAGAR, BELGAM. 2. SHRI. SANTOSH S/O VASANT PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HOUSE NO.33, DURGA MATA GALLI, OLD GANDHI NAGAR, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS ARE SERVED) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25-05-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.667/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.16 12:17:01 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9280 MFA No. 23346 of 2013 RS.43,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. 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) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the insurance company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act, for short), challenging the judgment and award dated 25.05.2013 passed in MVC No.667/2011 by the Fast Track Court-I, Belgaum, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. The appellant was respondent No.2, respondent No.1 was the claimant and respondent No.2 was respondent No.1. 3. Brief facts of the case leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9280 MFA No. 23346 of 2013 4. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation on the ground of injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 16.07.2009 when he was proceeding on his bicycle from New Gandhinagar to Belgaum city and when he was near Malagi petrol pump, a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EA-6070 came from opposite direction in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 did not file a statement of objections. 6. Respondent No.2 a filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9280 MFA No. 23346 of 2013 possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. The claimant in collusion with respondent No.1, the police and the alleged rider, who has pleaded guilty before the criminal court, has created and concocted a false story implicating the motorcycle in question, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the claim petition as against respondent No.2. 7. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues. 8. The claimant, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1 and marked 13 documents as Exs.P-1 to P- 13. On the other hand, respondents did not enter the witness box, however, got marked 3 documents as Ex.R-1 to R-3. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs granting compensation of Rs.43,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the date of the petition till realisation. It is also directed that the respondents are jointly - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9280 MFA No. 23346 of 2013 and severally liable to pay the compensation and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation within thirty days from the date of award. 9. The appellant-respondent No.2/insurance company aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award has filed this appeal. 10. Notice was issued to the claimant and respondent No.1- the respondents. Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondents. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-respondent No.2. 12. Respondent No.2-insurance company claims that, the claimant, in collusion with the owner of the vehicle, rider and the police authorities, filed a complaint to the police with an inordinate delay of 5½ months from the date of the alleged accident. He also submits that, the claimant has suffered injuries because he fell down on the road. He further submits that, the injuries suffered by the claimant, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9280 MFA No. 23346 of 2013 are not arising out of the alleged accident. Hence, on these grounds, he pays to allow the petition. He also submits that according to respondent No.1, the alleged accident occurred on 16.07.2009 but the complaint was lodged on 07.01.2010. He further submits that respondent No.1 has not explained the delay in lodging the complaint which itself creates a doubt regarding the occurrence of an accident. He submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering Ex.R-3-wound certificate issued by the Doctor on 16.07.2009 Further he submits that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the date of issuance of the wound certificate was not mentioned in the complaint and he also submits that respondent No.2 has taken a specific defence in the statement of objections regarding the history of injuries sustained by the claimant. Hence, he submits that, the Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9280 MFA No. 23346 of 2013 13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/ Respondent No.2. 14. The point that arises for consideration are: i. Whether the appellant-respondent No.2 proves that the Tribunal committed an error in passing the impugned judgment without considering the entire evidence on record? ii. What order or award? 15. Point No.(i): The claimant to substantiate his claim, examined himself as PW.1. He reiterated the claim petition averments in his examination-in-chief and to prove that he has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident, he has produced certified copy of FIR marked as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-7-certified copy of the charge-sheet which disclose that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9280 MFA No. 23346 of 2013 16. Insurance company has taken a specific defence in the statement of objections by denying the injuries sustained by the petitioner, arising out of the alleged accident. Further, to disprove the claim of the claimant, insurance company has produced wound certificate, marked as Ex.R-3, which discloses the history of injuries sustained by the claimant as self fall. The Doctor, who examined the claimant on 16.07.2009 at about 8:45pm, has mentioned the history as ‘fallen himself near Gandhinagar’. From the perusal of Ex.R-3, it discloses the date of issuance of Ex.R-3 and the injuries suffered by claimant are simple in nature and sustained because of self fall. But the Tribunal has recorded a finding that no date is mentioned regarding issuance of Ex.R-3. The Tribunal without considering the entire material on record, has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. 17. In view of the above discussion, I answer the point No.(i) for consideration in the affirmative. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9280 MFA No. 23346 of 2013 18. Point No.(ii): In view of answer to Point No.(i), I pass the following order: The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 25.05.2013 passed in MVC No.667/2011 by the Fast Tract Court-I, Belgaum, is set aside. The claim petition filed by the claimant, is dismissed. Amount in deposit and the Trial Court records be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Draw award accordingly. No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB