- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30649 MFA No. 3714 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3714 OF 2020 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1 . SMT. PADMAVATHI H.V W/O LATE NARASIMHA SWAMY B.L AGE 63 YEARS OCC:HOME MAKER (WIFE OF THE DECEASED) RESIDING AT "CHIGURU", NO.259 7TH CROSS, 1ST B MAIN ROAD SWAMY VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT A BLOCK, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201 2 . SMT. VISHALAKSHI K.N D/O LATE NARASIMHA SWAMY B.L AGE 47 YEARS R/O CRPF CAMPUS, YALAHANKA BENGALURU (DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED) 3 . SRI. DINESH K.N S/O LATE NARASIMHA SWAMY B.L AGE 45 YEARS RESIDING AT "CHIGURU", NO.259 7TH CROSS, 1ST B MAIN ROAD SWAMY VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT A BLOCK, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201 (SON OF THE DECEASED) 4 . SRI. RAVINDRA KUMAR S/O LATE NARASIMHA SWAMY B.L Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30649 MFA No. 3714 of 2020 AGE 43 YEARS RESIDING AT "CHIGURU", NO.259 7TH CROSS, 1ST B MAIN ROAD SWAMY VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT A BLOCK, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201 (SON OF THE DECEASED ) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HAVERI S.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. SURENDRA H.K S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BEHIND SUBBAIAH COMPLEX HOSAMANE EXTENSION SHIVAMOGGA-577 201 (OWNER OF AMBULANCE VEHICLE REG. NO.KA-14/A-4995) 2 . SRI. BALARAJ S/O NARASHIMHAIAH R/O 6TH CROSS, MANJUNATH EXTENSION SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577 201 (DRIVER OF AMBULANCE VEHICLE REG NO.KA-14/A-4995, DL NO.KA14- 19991001563) 3 . IFFCO TOKIYO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD. CARE OF SHRUTHI MOTORS SHANKARMUTT ROAD SHIMOGGA CITY (POLICY NO.88900830, VALID UPTO 07-08-2016) …RESPONDENTS (R1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DTD.06.04.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSEDD WITH; SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30649 MFA No. 3714 of 2020 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.64/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM AND AMACT-VII, MACT, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Misc.First Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 1.10.2019 passed by the learned I Additional Sr.Civil Judge and CJM and Addl.MACT No.7 at Shivamogga in MVC No.64/2017, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the MVC Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of one Sri Narasimhaswamy B.L. was dismissed. 2. The case, in brief, as pleaded by the appellants is that, the deceased Narasimhaswamy B.L. was a retired employee of the Indian Postal Department and was engaged in real estate Business after his retirement, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30649 MFA No. 3714 of 2020 earning an alleged monthly income o fRs.30,000/-. It was contended that, the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family consisting of the first appellant - his wife and remaining appellants who are his children. On 11.05.2016, at 10 a.m., the deceased was riding a bicycle in Shivamogga City from his residence to the bus stand with an intention to travel to Shringeri, he fell from his bicycle on Kuvempu Road and sustained head injuries. 3. Following the fall, the deceased was immediately taken to Nanjappa Hospital, Shivamogga where he received preliminary treatment. According to the appellants, although injuries sustained were not fatal, they were of such a nature that, the family decided to shift the deceased to KMC Hospital, Manipal for more advanced care. For this purpose, the appellants hired an ambulance bearing Regn.No.KA-14A-4995 which was owned by respondent no.1 and driven by respondent no.2. It was further contended that, the first appellant along with the third appellant accompanied the deceased in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30649 MFA No. 3714 of 2020 ambulance. When the ambulance reached Bharathipura Cross, in Thirthallai Tq. at about 4.00 p.m on the same day, 2nd respondent who was driving the vehicle allegedly drove the vehicle at rash and negligent manner lost control of the vehicle and applied sudden breaks resulting the ambulance toppling into roadside ditch. It was averred that, due to the impact, the deceased who was lying on a stretcher inside the ambulance, was thrown forward and hit his head on the body of the vehicle sustained grievous injuries to the head and other vital parts of his body and became unconscious. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted in another vehicle to JC Hospital, Thirthahalli where he was declared dead shortly after admission. 4. It was the specific case of the appellant that, accident involving the ambulance and delay caused by it in reaching the hospital was proximate and immediate cause of death and that the same occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the ambulance by the second respondent. Accordingly, a claim petition was filed seeking - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30649 MFA No. 3714 of 2020 compensation of Rs.36,50,000/- under various components. 5. Upon service of notice, respondent nos. 1 and 2 though appeared through their counsel, did not file any statement of objections and did not contest the petition. The third respondent -insurance company however, filed its statement of objections denying the claim. It was contended that, the accident involving the ambulance had no casual nexus with the death of the deceased which had in fact occurred due to the earlier fall from the bicycle. The insurer further contended that, the deceased had sustained grievous head injuries in the said fall from cycle and was already unconscious when admitted at Nanjappa Hospital and the story of death being caused by a subsequent ambulance accident was concocted only to foist liability on the insurance company. 6. Before the Tribunal, the third appellant was examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 to P18 in support of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30649 MFA No. 3714 of 2020 the case. The Insurance Company examined its Law Officer as RW.1 and produced Insurance Policy marked at Ex.R1. 7. Upon appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal framed issues regarding the occurrence of the accident, rash and negligent driving, cause of death, validity of driving licence and entitlement of compensation. 8. On a thorough analysis of the evidence, the Tribunal recorded a clear finding that the deceased had suffered severe head injury due to fall from bicycle at 10.p.m. 11.05.2016 and admitted to Nanjappa hospital in an unconscious state. The CT scan and OPD slip of Nanjappa Hospital at Ex.P13 and 14 respectively clearly showed the presence of intra-cranial injuries, including fracture of the parietal bone and hemorrhagic contusions prior to the ambulance journey. The OPD note also recorded that the patient had serious conditions and relatives had refused admission and decided to shift him to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30649 MFA No. 3714 of 2020 other medical center against the medical advise after being warned about risk and consequences. 9. The learned Tribunal noted that, according to PW.1's own testimony, the deceased was unconscious from the time of initial fall and remained in that condition throughout and never revived until he was declared dead at JC Hospital, Thirthalli. Though FIR was lodged and charge sheet was filed against the driver of the ambulance. Charge sheet at Ex.P17 revealed that, the offences invoked were only under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC in respect of injuries allegedly caused to other occupants and not to other Sections of IPC for causing death. This according to the Tribunal was indicative of the absence of any fatal link between the ambulance accident, and the death of the deceased. 10. The learned Tribunal also observed that, the PM report at Ex.P6 attributed the cause of death to head injury due to blunt trauma but, did not confirm whether - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30649 MFA No. 3714 of 2020 such trauma was sustained in the ambulance accident or in the earlier bicycle fall. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the Tribunal has found that the petitioner had failed to prove the death occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the ambulance. Accordingly, dismissed the claim petition. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents in the appeal and upon comprehensive evaluation of the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that, the findings of the Tribunal are well-reasoned based on cogent material, and do not call for interference. The core issue in this case is, whether appellants have been able to establish on preponderance of probabilities that the death of Narasimhasway was caused directly and proximately by the alleged road traffic accident involving ambulance. 12. I find that, such a casual link is not proved. The contemporaneous medical records from Nanjappa Hospital - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30649 MFA No. 3714 of 2020 conclusively show that the deceased had already sustained serious and potentially fatal head injuries in the fall from bicycle. There is no evidence of further trauma in the ambulance accident nor any independent medical opinion linking the ambulance accident to the death. On the contrary, the delay caused due to break down and accident of the ambulance cannot be construed as the legal or proximate cause of death, particularly, when the decision to shift the patient despite being in an unconscious or critical condition by the family against the medical advise. 13. The law is well settled in claims under Section 166 of the MVC Act, the burden is on the claimant to establish that the accident was the direct and the proximate cause of death or injury and that death was not caused by any unrelated antecedent cause. In the present case, the evidence does not support appellant's claim that death occurred due to rash and negligent act of ambulance - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30649 MFA No. 3714 of 2020 driver. The findings of Tribunal are therefore neither perverse nor contrary to law. 14. In the light of the above, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. Resultantly, the following: ORDER (i) The MFA is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 1.10.2019 passed by the I Additional Sr.Civil Judge and CJM and Addl. MACT-VII at Shivamogga in MVC NO.64/2017 is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2