- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3650 MFA No. 24066 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24066 OF 2011 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. MALLAYYA S/O. RACHAYYA CHULKIMATH, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS (NOW-NIL), R/O: NANAGUNDIKOPPA, TQ. BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST. BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RATNOJI S/O. VASUDEV MORESHWAR, AGE: MAJOR, (CORRECT AGE NOT KNOWN) OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KASHINATTI, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD-580001, NOW AT ANAND BUILDING, 131/2A, BEHIND CHURCH, MUMBAI- BENGALURU HIGHWAY, WARGE MALAWADI PUNA, MAHARASHTRA STATE-411052. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NDA RD OPPOSITE SANJI BANI HOSPITAL, WARGE MALAWADI-PUNE-411052, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GANAPATI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590016. 3. SRI. MOULE S/O. RANGANATH JONJALE, AGE: MAJOR (CORRECT AGE NOT KNOWN) OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: GOKAK GALLI, TQ. BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH BAILHONGAL, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590016. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3650 MFA No. 24066 of 2011 (BY SRI R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI R.S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED; APPEAL AGAINST R1 STANDS ABATED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16-06-2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.2503/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BAILHONGAL, AT: BAILHONGAL AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) The appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 16.06.2011 passed in MVC No.2503/2007 by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional MACT, Bailhongal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) thereby, the claim petition filed by the claimant was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3650 MFA No. 24066 of 2011 3. Heard the arguments from both learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the material placed on records. 4. Brief facts of the case: It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling as pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-24/H-6474 on Belawadi-Bailhongal road towards Belawadi, at that time the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.MH-12/JG-2466 drove the same with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. Thus, in this way the accident was caused and the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the pillion rider of the motorcycle against the owner and insurer of the car, alleging that the car driver was rash and negligent in driving the car and caused the accident. 5. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the grounds that from the Police records including the complaint, FIR and charge sheet, it is proved that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3650 MFA No. 24066 of 2011 accident was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. Therefore, there is no actionable negligence on part of the driver of the car. Hence, dismissed the claims petition. 6. Upon considering the Police documents Ex.P- 1/complaint-FIR along with Ex.P-2/spot panchanama, Ex.P-5/charge sheet from which, it is proved the fact that the claimant, who had lodged the complaint before the Police, stated that he was driving the car bearing Reg.No.MH-12/JG-2466 mentioning that a KSRTC bus was coming on its right side and the car was in its correct side of the road, but the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-24/H-6474 was coming behind the bus and while in the process of overtaking the KSRTC bus has dashed the car. Thus, in this way, the accident was caused. Therefore, the complaint was lodged by the driver of the car against the rider of the motorcycle. 7. Ex.P-2/spot panchanama, proved the fact that the motorcycle was wrong side of the road. Upon - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3650 MFA No. 24066 of 2011 investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the rider of the motorcycle indicating that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the car. Just because, the claimant has given oral evidence before the Tribunal that cannot be made as gospel truth unless his evidence is corroborated by any other evidence. Further, the averments in the claim petition are completely different from complaint, FIR, spot panchanama and charge sheet. Therefore, in this regard, the Tribunal has correctly dismissed the claim petition. 8. In the present case, upon appreciating the evidence on record, proved the fact that there is no actionable negligence on part of the driver of the car. But, the accident was caused by the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle, on which the claimant was travelling as pillion rider. The driver of the car has lodged complaint before the Police, alleging that the rider of the motorcycle has dashed the car. Therefore, the FIR was registered against the claimant himself, indicating that he was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3650 MFA No. 24066 of 2011 involved in the accident. However, it is noted that the name of the accused in the charge sheet is different. 9. Upon considering the evidence of the claimant, it is proved that he has led false evidence by stating that he was pillion rider on the motorcycle. According to the complaint, the rider of the motorcycle caused the accident by riding the same with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner therefore, the claimant himself was arrayed as accused in the FIR. Also in the charge sheet, it is proved that the accident was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle, but the name of the accused is different. Considering all these evidence on record, the claimant has failed to prove that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the car. 10. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in disbelieving the evidence of the claimant and the claim petition itself is not believable. Therefore, dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal is justified. Hence, there is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3650 MFA No. 24066 of 2011 no merit found in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45