- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10513 MFA No. 23944 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23944 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. N. RAJAPPA NAYAK AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: ASI, R/O. GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT \ (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI. VEERAPPANNA RAMAPPA BHAGOJI AGE: MAJOR, OCC. NOT KNOWN AT POST. SUNADHOLI VILLAGE, TQ: GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591508. (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO. KA-49/M-0634). 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MADIWALI COMPLEX, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADV FOR R1, RAJSHEKAR S. ARANI, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28-02-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.153/2011 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT IS DISMISSED. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.10 12:28:15 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10513 MFA No. 23944 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the dismissal of the claim petition in MVC No.153/2011 dated 28.02.2013 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading raise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 23.12.2009, the petitioner attended his special duty at Belgaum and was returning to Gokak on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/G-525. When he reached near the Leprosy Hospital within the limits of Khanagaon at around 4.30 p.m., a tempo trax bearing registration No.KA-49/M-0634 came in a rash and negligent manner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10513 MFA No. 23944 of 2013 number and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 3. Notice was issued to respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, respondent No.1 remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte. 4. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed the statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector, had created and manipulated records and filed the claim petition. It was further denied that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the alleged accident. It was also contended that the MVI report disclosed that no external damage was noted in respect of the said Tempo Trax and that the driver of the offending vehicle was not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10513 MFA No. 23944 of 2013 possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company submitted that it is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the respondent No.2. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleading of the parties framed the relevant issues. 6. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1, examined the Doctor as PW-2 and marked 18 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company examined the Doctor as RW-1, the Senior Assistant was examined as RW-2 and produced 7 documents marked as Ex.R1 to R7. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide Judgment and award dated 28.02.2013. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10513 MFA No. 23944 of 2013 7. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2-Insurnace Company. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and to establish that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, he has produced a copy of the FIR. It is contended that the Tribunal, without properly considering this aspect, committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and consequentially, allow the claim petition. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector as of the date of the alleged accident. He submits that the alleged accident took place - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10513 MFA No. 23944 of 2013 on 23.12.2009 and a complaint was lodged on 24.12.2009 against an unknown vehicle. He further submits that the petitioner, in collusion with his officials, got the FIR registered against an unknown person. He placed reliance on the wound certificate, which discloses that the petitioner had fallen from the motorbike and not that the injuries were due to a road traffic accident. It is further contended that the petitioner subsequently got inserted in the wound certificate that the injuries were caused by a road traffic accident. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The point that arises for consideration is: Whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds to interfere with the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10513 MFA No. 23944 of 2013 impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal ? 13. It is the case of the petitioner that he met with an accident on 23.12.2009 while riding his motorcycle, when the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner has produced a copy of the complaint and FIR, marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. From the perusal of Ex.P1, there is no reference to the vehicle involved in the accident and further, the petitioner has not produced the charge sheet to demonstrate that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector. The petitioner by taking undue advantage of his official position, has got the FIR registered, which is marked as Ex.P2. Even from a perusal of Ex.P2 it does not discloses the registration number of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10513 MFA No. 23944 of 2013 the alleged offending vehicle. The petitioner has also produced a certified copy of wound certificate, marked as Ex.P5, which discloses that the cause of injury as due to the fall from a motorcycle and not due to the accident. It appears that the petitioner subsequently implicated the said vehicle to claim the compensation. 15. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle and further failed to establish that he sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-49/M-0634. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned Judgment. In view of the above discussion, I answer point in the negative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10513 MFA No. 23944 of 2013 (ii) The Judgment and award dated 28.02.2013 passed in MVC No.153/2011 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi, is hereby confirmed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/- CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4