- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34082 MFA No. 7090 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7090 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR.SHEKAR POOJARY S/O.MR.CHANDRU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, H.NO.2B-212, 7TH CROSS, 76TH BADAGUBETTU, INDIRA NAGARA, UDUPI-576 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR.RAGAVENDRA SHERIGAR S/O.LATE MADHUKAR SHERIGAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, H.NO.6-2-125, P.P.C. CROSS ROAD, LOAKADU, UDUPI-576 101. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, SRI RAM ARCADE, OPP:HEAD POST OFFICE, UDUPI-576 101 3. MR.PRASNNA SHETTY S/O.N.RAGAVENDRA SHETTY, SADAGUURU KRIPA, GUNDIBAIL, UDUPI-576 101 4. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34082 MFA No. 7090 of 2013 DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OPP:SREENIDHI MEDICAL, NEAR CHITTARNJAN CIRCLE, UDUPI-576 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.A.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 R1 & R3- SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.440/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.440/2011 dated 16.04.2013 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Udupi, whereby the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition, the claimant is before this Court. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.5,82,800/- for injuries sustained by the claimant in the road accident. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 15.03.2011 at about 11.30 am., he was a pedestrian in front of Mother Sorrow Church at Udupi, at that time one Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA20-U-4869 came in a rash and negligent manner and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34082 MFA No. 7090 of 2013 hit the claimant and he had sustained injuries. In the complaint also he has given the number as KA20-U-4869. Then on the next day, he gives a restatement wherein he has mentioned the bike registration number as KA20-R-4424 and the police have filed charge sheet against the rider of the said motorcycle. 3. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition observing that it is not the case that the claimant was unconscious after the accident. He was very much coherent and he has given the complaint. Later, with the collusion of the police bike reg.No.KA20-R-4424 was implicated and the Tribunal had disbelieved the version of the claimant and had given a finding that the claimant had failed to prove that the vehicle with registration No.KA20-R-4424 is involved in the accident and due to negligence of the rider of the said vehicle, the said accident had occurred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant submits that immediately the claimant had given a restatement mentioning the correct number. The Tribunal ought to have considered and in fact the police after a full- fledged enquiry filed the charge sheet. In those circumstances, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34082 MFA No. 7090 of 2013 the Tribunal ought to have considered the claim petition and ought to have granted the compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and 4/Insurance Companies submits that the Tribunal had rightly disbelieved the version of the claimant where he has mentioned two bike registration numbers. As the bike reg.No.KA20-U- 4869 was not having the insurance, bike reg.No.KA20-R-4424 is implicated in this case and the Tribunal had rightly considered and dismissed the claim petition and there are no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. In the first complaint, the vehicle number is mentioned as KA20-U-4869. After a day it is stated that it is KA20-R-4424 and in the restatement the reasons that are given why he has given a different number for one day before and how this vehicle number is given now, the reasons that are stated had not inspired confidence in the mind of the Tribunal and the Tribunal had rightly disbelieved the version of the cliamant and rightly held that the involvement of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34082 MFA No. 7090 of 2013 the vehicle is not true. This Court finds no reason to interfere as the Tribunal had rightly considered and dismissed the claim petition. 7. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is dismissed. i) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay ii) No costs. iii) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1