- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4438 MFA No. 105157 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 105157 OF 2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI. RAJENDRA S/O. GOVINDRAY NAYAK, AGE 65 YEARS, OCCU: RETIRED GOVT. SERVENT, R/O. BARAGADDE, SARASWATI NILAY, HONNAVARA, TQ. HONNAVARA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581334. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAQBOOLAHAMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. MADAN L. GANGAVALKAR, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER NWKRTC, R/O. TOKEN NO 194, SIRSI DEPORT, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, SIRSI DIVISION, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI ROAD, SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.05.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC AND MACT, AT. HONNAVAR, IN M.V.C NO.575/2018 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4438 MFA No. 105157 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This is a claimant’s appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 25.05.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl. MACT, Honnavar in MVC No.575/2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short), which was dismissed after trial. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. It is the contention of the appellant/petitioner that on 06.02.2018 at about 10.30 a.m., petitioner came from Ankola to Sirsi to attend some official work at KSRTC Divisional Office. In order to go to Divisional Office of KSRTC, he attempted to board a bus of the KSRTC bearing Reg.No.KA-31/F-901 at Sirsi KSRTC bus stand. Before he could enter the bus, the driver of the bus- respondent No.1, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries to his left shoulder. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4438 MFA No. 105157 of 2023 appellant was immediately shifted to TSS Hospital, Sirsi, wherein he took treatment and he was adviced to take further treatment. On 14.02.2018, as per the medical advice, he was admitted to Tejasvini Hospital, Mangalore as inpatient from 17.02.2018 to 24.02.2018 and underwent surgery and spent more than Rs.2,50,000/- for treatment. 4. It is the further case of the claimant/appellant that on the date of the accident, he did not know that he had to give a complaint. Respondent No.1 has also assured that he would pay the medical expenses incurred by him for treatment. But respondent No.1 did not pay as promised. He was admitted as inpatient in Tejasvini Hospital, Mangalore and he got discharged from the hospital on 20.02.2018. Thereafter he lodged a compliant before the Sirsi Police which was registered in Crime No.33/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4438 MFA No. 105157 of 2023 5. It is further contended that claimant was aged 60 years at the time of accident and was working as a government servant. Due to the accident, appellant sustained injuries and he become permanently disabled. On these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 6. The respondents denied all the averments in the claim petition and further stated that claimant approached this Court with fabricated case, just to claim compensation. No such accident had taken place as alleged in the claim petition. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. From the rival contention of the parties, the Tribunal had framed the following issues: “i. Whether the claimant proves that he has sustained injuries and disability in the road traffic accident occurred on 06.02.2018 at about 10.30 a.m. at KSRTC old Bus Stand Compound, Sirsi on public road due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31/F-901 while he was climbing the bus? - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4438 MFA No. 105157 of 2023 ii. Whether the claimant is entitled for the compensation? If so, to what is the quantum and from whom? iii. What order or award? 8. The claimant on his behalf examined two witness as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P63. Respondents examined one witness as RW1 and got marked one document as Ex.R1. 9. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the negative and issue No.2 do not survive for consideration, accordingly by the impugned judgment and award dated 25.05.2023 dismissed the petition and the same is challenged in the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the claimant was an employee of respondent-Corporation and on the date of the incident, the driver of the bus promised the claimant that he would bear the medical expenses. Since his colleague assured him that he would pay the medical expenses, on that day, he did not lodge the complaint. After taking treatment and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4438 MFA No. 105157 of 2023 discharging from the hospital, when he tried to file a complaint, he contacted the driver of the said bus, but he refused to pay the medical bill. Therefore he was forced to lodge the complaint. The police have registered Criminal Case and submitted charge-sheet. It prime facie shows that the accident had taken place and in the said accident the appellant had sustained injuries. 11. The Tribunal has not considered these points and dismissed the petition only on the ground that there was a delay of 14 days in filing the said petition. The findings are not tenable. With these reasons, prayed to allow the appeal and remand the matter for assessment of the compensation, which is not determined by the Tribunal. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that admittedly no complaint was filed till 20th February 2018. The appellant/claimant had not sustained injuries in the vehicle accident, before he could climb the bus, he fell down due to loss of balance and he himself has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4438 MFA No. 105157 of 2023 stated before the Medical Officer of Tejasvini Hospital, Mangalore. If really he met with an accident as stated in the petition, there is no hurdle for him to inform the said hospital regarding the history of his injuries. It is further contended that in the claim petition as well as in the affidavit filed by PW1, he stated that as on the date of accident, he did not know that he had to give a complaint therefore, complaint was not immediately given. Claimant himself contends that he had been serving in KSRTC for 31 years as a Junior Assistant and under the circumstances, it is highly impossible to believe that he was unaware that he has to file a complaint in case of a accident. It is also further stated that in the cross-examination of RW1, no such case was made out or even it was not suggested that RW1 had assured him to pay the medical bills, therefore absolutely the case of appellant is not probable. The Tribunal has considered all these points and rightly held that claimant had not sustained injuries in a vehicle accident as contended by him. Said findings do not call for any interference of this Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4438 MFA No. 105157 of 2023 13. The submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2 is tenable. Undisputedly, complaint was not lodged till 20.02.2018. The alleged incident had said to be taken place on 06.02.2018. There is a delay of about 416 days in lodging the complaint. In Ex.P2, it is stated that though he met with an accident on 06.02.2018, he went to the hospital and took treatment and went home. He was unaware of lodging the complaint therefore he did not give the complaint immediately. Thereafter he was taking treatment as inpatient. Hence, could not lodge the complaint. In Ex.P2, there is no reference that driver of alleged offending vehicle assured him that he would repay the medical bills, therefore he did not file a complaint. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the medical records from the TSS Hospital, Sirsi is not placed on record to show that he intimated before the Hospital that he sustained injuries in a vehicle accident. On the contrary, in Ex.P5, it is noted that he met with an accident. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4438 MFA No. 105157 of 2023 14. RW1, who was the driver of the bus at the time of alleged accident, in his examination-in-chief, stated that he has informed that one person intended to board the Bus, came running and lost balance and fell down. In his cross-examination, no suggestions were made that he assured him that he would reimburse the medical expenses, if he does not file a complaint. It appears that as on the date of the accident, he was serving as Junior Assistant in KSRTC. Immediately after the accident, he did not file any application for grant of casual leave on the very same ground of accident and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that such an application was filed after 14 days, i.e., after lodging of the complaint. The materials placed on record, do not inspire confidence in the contention of the claimant that he sustained injuries in vehicle accident or while boarding the bus, driver of the bus rode the bus in a high speed therefore he fell down and sustained injuries. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4438 MFA No. 105157 of 2023 15. The Tribunal has accessed the evidence of PW1 and RW1 in detail and also considered the materials available on record and rightly answered issue No.1 in negative. I do not find any illegality in the said findings and it is based on the material available on record. Therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. 16. For the aforesaid discussions, I answer issue No.1 in the negative and pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and award dated 25.05.2023 in MVC No.575/2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl.MACT, Honnavar is confirmed. iii. Send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment to MACT. iv. Both parties shall bear their own costs. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6