- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348 MFA No. 200495 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200495 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SAHEBLAL S/O LALSAB KORBU @ KURESHI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AT/POST: TAJPUR, TQ. & DIST: VIJAYAPUR 586 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BABU H.METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. MAHESH S/O MAHALINGAIAH HIREMATH, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: IBRAHIMPUR, TQ. & DIST: VIJAYAPUR – 586 101. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, HANAMSHETTY BUILDING, GURUKUL ROAD, VIJAYAPUR 586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1531/2014 BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VI AT VIJAYAPURA AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION OF RS.14,99,000/- WITH 12% IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348 MFA No. 200495 of 2020 THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 20.03.2019 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VI, Vijayapur (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.1531/2014, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Babu H Metagudda, learned counsel submitted, appeal was by claimant challenging dismissal of claim petition by tribunal. It was submitted, on 07.05.2012 at 7:00 p.m. when claimant was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-28/AX-6912 on Athani-Vjayapura road, driver of car bearing registration no.KA-28/A-2836 came in rash and negligent manner, dashed against motorcycle causing accident. In said accident, claimant sustained several grievous fractural injuries leading to amputation. Despite taking treatment at Miraj Wanless Hospital, he did not recover and sustained permanent physical disability. Alleging loss of earning capacity, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act. 3. On service of summons, owner did not appear and he was placed ex parte, only insurer filed objections denying - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348 MFA No. 200495 of 2020 involving insured vehicle in accident, delay in lodging police complaint apart from violation of policy conditions. Even cause of accident due to entire contributory negligence of claimant was also alleged. 4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed following: ISSUES (i) Whether petitioner proves that, he has sustained simple and grievous injuries in the Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 07-05-2012 at about 7.00 p.m, in the evening on Vijaypur-Athani road near Metakinahal Nala Tq/Dist:Vijaypur in the P.S.limits of Vijaypur Rural Station on account of rash and negligent driving of TATA Indica Car bearing Reg.No.KA-28/AX-2836 by its driver as alleged? (ii) Whether the respondent NO.2 proves that due to violation of policy conditions they are not liable to pay compensation? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom? (iv) What order or award? 5. Thereafter, it recorded evidence, wherein claimant examined himself as PW.1 and Dr.S.S.Nagathan, as PW.2. Exs.P.1 to P12 were marked. Insurer examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.4. 6. On consideration, trial Court answered issue no.1 in negative, issue no.2 not surviving for consideration and issue - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348 MFA No. 200495 of 2020 no.3 by dismissing claim petition. Aggrieved claimant has filed this appeal. 7. It was submitted owner of vehicle-respondent no.1 did not appear and contest appeal. Therefore there was deemed admission about occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle. It was submitted in Ex.P.5 - wound certificate history of injuries were mentioned as due to Road Traffic Accident. Therefore, hospital authorities ought to have registered it as MLC and intimated police. For lapse/omission on part of hospital authorities claimant cannot be denied compensation. It was further submitted, immediately after accident there was a diary entry about accident maintained by Miraz police. However, they did not register FIR on said basis. There was clear assertion about said fact by claimant in Ex.P.2. On above grounds submitted that tribunal has committed grave error in dismissing claim petition and sought allowing appeal. 8. Sri S.S.Aspalli, learned counsel for respondent no.2-insurer, on other hand opposed appeal. It was submitted as per claimant alleged accident occurred on 07.05.2012 at 7:00 p.m. and no complaint was lodged or registered. It was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348 MFA No. 200495 of 2020 submitted private complaint was filed on 14.02.2014, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., nearly two years thereafter. It was submitted, as per claimant he took in-patient from 08.05.2012 to 24.05.2012 and discharged. There is no proper explanation for non-filing of complaint even after discharge until filing of private complaint two years thereafter. It was also submitted that during cross-examination, claimant admitted that no efforts were made for filing complaint after discharge from hospital. 9. Learned counsel further submitted charge sheet got marked by claimant as Ex.P6 was found to be fake. That apart, though as per claimant, accident was on account of collision between motorcycle and car, two wheeler involved in accident was never seized nor any investigation made. On overall consideration, as said factors cast grave doubt about involvement of insured vehicle in accident or about occurrence of accident as alleged by claimant, tribunal rightly appreciated facts and circumstances in proper perspective and dismissed claim petition and there was no scope for interference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348 MFA No. 200495 of 2020 10. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and records. 11. From above and since claimant is challenging dismissal of claim petition, point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether dismissal of claim petition by Tribunal calls for interference?” 12. This is claimant’s appeal challenging dismissal of claim petition by tribunal on ground that claimant failed to establish occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle. In order to establish actionable claim against respondent insurer, in claim petition claimant pleaded that on 07.05.2012 at 7.00 p.m., when he was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-28/AX-6912 on Athani-Vijaypur road, carefully and cautiously observing traffic rules, near Toravi-Metakinahal Nala, a TATA Indica car bearing registration no.KA-28/A-2836 came from opposite side driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle causing accident. 13. It was further pleaded that in accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and admitted to Wanless Hospital, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348 MFA No. 200495 of 2020 Miraj, as indoor patient. To establish occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle, claimant relied upon police investigation records and hospital treatment records namely FIR, copy of private complaint, spot panchanama, MVI report, wound certificate, copy of charge sheet, medical bills, CT scan report, prescriptions, X-ray photos, certificate of Medical Board and X-ray films as Exs.P1 to P12. While, respondent relied on Insurance Policy, vehicle fitness certificate, endorsement issued by RTO and certified copy of order sheet in P.C.no.114/2014 marked as Exs.R1 to R4. 14. Perusal of Ex.P1-FIR would indicate that it was registered on 13.03.2014 at 12.00 p.m. in pursuance of filing of private complaint in P.C.no.114/2014 on 20.02.2014 before Court of JMFC-I, Bijapur. Date of incident is stated to be 07.05.2012. Reason for delay in filing and registering of complaint is stated as due to offending vehicle not stopping at accident spot. Ex.P2 is private complaint i.e. P.C.no.114/2014 filed by complainant. In paragraph no.1, thereof manner of occurrence of accident as stated in claim petition is re-iterated. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348 MFA No. 200495 of 2020 In paragraph no.3, it is specifically stated that complainant had given a complaint on 09.05.2012 before Miraj City Police Station and same was registered as Diary no.22/2012. It is further stated complainant was informed that complaint would be transferred to Bijapur Rural Police Station, thereafter. It is stated that complainant was under impression that complaint would be transferred and investigation would be completed by Bijapur police. Hence, after discharge from hospital at Miraj, he had not enquired. But when he noticed that complaint was not transferred and there was no further action, he attempted to file complaint before Rural Police Station, Bijapur. As there was refusal to register complaint, he was constrained to file private complaint. 15. Ex.P3 is crime detail form, registering crime no.MAG 70/2014 on 20.02.2014. Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report at Ex.P4 is in relation to insured vehicle only and not motorcycle. It notes no damages on insured vehicle. Ex.P5 is wound certificate issued by Wanless Hospital, Miraj. History of injuries column is entered to be alleged due to Road Traffic Accident. Date of admission of patient is 08.05.2012 and date of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348 MFA No. 200495 of 2020 discharge shown as 24.05.2012. Ex.P6 is copy of alleged charge sheet dated 25.05.2014. Medical bills and treatment records would indicate that claimant was admitted on 08.05.2012 for treatment. Though treatment records would appear consistent with claimant’s assertion, there is no explanation or particulars of RTA such as vehicles involved. 16. Ex.R4 order sheet in P.C.no.114/2014 would indicate that even as on 18.08.2018, charge sheet and final report was not filed and Ex.P6 was fake. Thus, there is no document produced as would implicate insured vehicle in accident. Even, Ex.P5-wound certificate issued by Wanless Hospital, Miraj, does not mention any vehicle which had caused accident. 17. While passing impugned award, tribunal has examined said aspects in detail and drew adverse inference. Based on said conclusion, it held issue no.1 about claimant establishing actionable cause against insured vehicle in negative. It is seen that conclusion of tribunal is after due appreciation of entire material on record and by assigning proper reasons. Reasons cannot be held to be contrary to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348 MFA No. 200495 of 2020 record or without any basis. No reasons to differ. Hence, point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently, following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61 Ct;Vk