- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44043 MFA No. 2717 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2717 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. HARIPRASAD SHETTY S/O RAMANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT MANJUSDHREE NILAYA, KUNTINI, LAILA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 212 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. STENI JAYAKARA KARKADA S/O WILLIAM KARKADA, AGED 53 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.63, KUNTHINI HOUSE, NEAR T.B.HOSPITAL, LAILA, UJIRE POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 212. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44043 MFA No. 2717 of 2015 2. THE SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEAR BUS STAND, RAJEEV GANDHI COMPLEX, MOODABIDRI, MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - -575 015. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY / SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.647/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-II, D.K., MANGALORE AND CLAIM PETITION BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44043 MFA No. 2717 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by injured claimant, calling the judgment and award dated 02.12.2014 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, MACT-II, D.K., Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in M.V.C. No.647/2012. The Tribunal by impugned judgment dismissed the petition primarily on the ground that the MLC report at Exhibit P3 records the history of the incident as a "bike skid." 2. The date of the accident, the involvement of the vehicle, and the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant are not in dispute. The sole dispute is whether the accident was a self-accident or was caused due to the actionable negligence attributed to the driver of the tipper lorry. 3. Heard Sri Ravishankar G. Shastri, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Mallikarjun N.A., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri B.C. Shivannegowda, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44043 MFA No. 2717 of 2015 learned counsel for respondent No.2 (Insurance Company). The respondent No.1 though served, however, he remains unrepresented. 4. Sri Ravishankar G. Shastri, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that except Exhibit P3 (the MLC report), the entire of the police records are against the driver of the tipper lorry. He submits that the owner of the tipper lorry, though made a party to the claim petition, remained ex-parte and did not challenge the crime registered against the driver. The Tribunal, however, based its conclusion solely on Exhibit P3, which mentions the history as a "bike skid." Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claimant failed to prove Issue No. 1 and answered it in the negative, leading to the dismissal of the claim petition. Learned counsel contended that this finding of the Tribunal is erroneous, as the entire record, barring Exhibit P3, is against the tipper lorry driver. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44043 MFA No. 2717 of 2015 5. Learned counsel further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the injured claimant was unconscious immediately after the accident and was hospitalized for two months. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered belatedly on 09.10.2011. The FIR itself clearly records that the claimant was still unconscious on the date of its filing. Since the claimant was not in a position to give a statement, the complaint was lodged based on information that a lorry caused the accident and its driver fled away the scene along with lorry. Accordingly, the police registered a case under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act. Upon investigation, the police found the tipper lorry which caused the accident and filed a charge sheet against its driver. The Tribunal, according to learned counsel, erred in completely brushing aside this entire police record and instead placed undue reliance on Exhibit P3. He emphasized that the history in Exhibit P3 was not provided by the injured claimant but by a third party, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44043 MFA No. 2717 of 2015 Sri.Purandara, who was not an eyewitness. This is evident from the complaint, as Sri.Purandara has stated that he received a phone call from one Sri.Hariprasad informing him of the accident. 6. In these circumstances, learned counsel argued that the Tribunal's reasoning is unsustainable. He, therefore, prays for allowing the appeal. He further submitted that since the matter was not considered on merits regarding compensation, it requires a remand to the Tribunal for determination of just compensation to which the claimant is entitled for the injuries sustained. 7. Per contra, Sri.Mallikarjun N.A., learned counsel for respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company), refuted these submissions. He contends the medical record (Exhibit P3) clearly stipulates the history as a "bike skid", which is prior to FIR. The Tribunal rightly considered this prima facie material, which came into existence before the FIR. The FIR was lodged after a delay of ten days, and the police - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44043 MFA No. 2717 of 2015 investigation is subsequent to that, cannot nullify the document at Ex.P3. Hence, there is no infirmity in the Tribunal's reasoning, and the judgment does not call for any interference, and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The only question that arises for the consideration of this Court is: "Whether the Tribunal was justified in answering Issue No. 1 against the claimant?" 10. My answer to the above question is in ‘Negative’, for the following reasons: 11. It is specifically stated in the complaint that the complainant was not an eyewitness to the accident. He acted on information received via a phone call from one Hariprasad. The complaint clearly records that the claimant was unconscious on the date of its filing. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44043 MFA No. 2717 of 2015 police, upon investigation, found the offending vehicle which caused of the accident and filed a charge sheet. In such circumstances, the history ("bike skid") recorded in Exhibit P3 provided by a person when the claimant was unconscious and who was not an eyewitness cannot be accorded overriding importance. 12. It is pertinent to note that the owner of the offending vehicle, though a party to the proceedings, remained ex parte and did not contest the matter. There is nothing on record to show that the charge sheet filed by the police was ever challenged either by the owner or the driver of the vehicle. 13. In these circumstances, in the absence of any counter-evidence from the vehicle owner, and by relying solely on a medical record based on hearsay from a non- eyewitness, the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim. The finding on Issue No.1 rendered is therefore unsustainable, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44043 MFA No. 2717 of 2015 as all other records, except Exhibit P3, point towards the involvement and negligence of the driver of tipper lorry. 14. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal committed a serious error in holding that the claimant was responsible for a self-inflicted injury due to a "bike skid," despite overwhelming documentary evidence to the contrary. The findings on the issue, therefore, warrant interference. 15. Accordingly, this Court answers the point for consideration by holding that Issue No. 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, concluding that the driver of the tipper lorry was responsible for the accident, and the injuries were caused due to his actionable negligence. 16. Since the matter was not considered on merits regarding quantum of compensation, it is but necessary to remand the case to the Tribunal solely for the purpose of determining the quantification of just compensation. In the result, the following order is passed: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44043 MFA No. 2717 of 2015 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 02.12.2014 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, MACT-II, D.K., Mangaluru, in M.V.C. No. 647/2012, is hereby set aside. iii. The case is restored to the file of the concerned Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to hold an enquiry limited to the aspect of the claimant's entitlement to the just compensation for the injuries suffered. iv. The Tribunal shall undertake this exercise, taking into consideration the date of the accident and the year of the claim petition, as expeditiously as possible and in any event within an outer limit of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44043 MFA No. 2717 of 2015 v. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 31.01.2026 without awaiting further notice. vi. All contentions of the parties on the issue of compensation are kept open. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7