- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46464 MFA No. 4523 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4523 OF 2024 (MV- D) BETWEEN: 1. CHIKKAMADU S/O LATE DYAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. KAMALAKSHI W/O CHIKKAMADU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 3. NANDAN KUMAR S/O CHIKKAMADU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 4. RAJU C S/O CHIKKAMADU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT RAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHIVARAMEGOWDA S/O MANCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT ANKEGOWDANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46464 MFA No. 4523 of 2024 CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 007. 2. THE MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 25/1, 2ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 2 SHANKARAMARAYANA BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - SHIVARAMEGOWDA - SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.02.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.897/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SMALL CAUSES, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking to set aside the judgment and award dated 17.02.2024 passed in MVC No.897/2022 by the Court of Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Mysuru, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed and consequently to allow this appeal and award the compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46464 MFA No. 4523 of 2024 2. It is the case of the claimant that, on 30.01.2022, the deceased was proceeding in his motorcycle on Mahadevapura Main Road and when he came near Siddanakatte, he fell down accidentally due to which, he sustained injury and injuries over the parts of the body. At that moment, the driver of the tipper lorry, who came at high speed in a zig zag manner ran over the deceased, consequent to which, he succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Immediately, the body was shifted to the K.R. Nagara Hospital for post- mortem and all the rights were performed. 3. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the eyewitness to the accident was not examined. The tipper lorry was seized in the campus of the police station. But, there is no statement forthcoming as to who gave the information as to how the vehicle was traced. The charge sheet is based on the version of eyewitness and the complainant. Since the eyewitness was not examined, relying on the charge sheet is improbable to hold that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. So, all the circumstances probabilise that either it is the case of hit and run or that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46464 MFA No. 4523 of 2024 deceased died due to the accident and fall while riding the motorcycle. For the sake of claiming compensation, the insured lorry and its driver are implicated. The evidence placed on record fails to inspire confidence in the mind of the Tribunal to hold that the insured lorry was involved in the accident. Accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that immediately after the accident, the deceased was taken to the hospital and based on the evidence given by the eyewitness, a charge sheet was filed against the driver of the tipper lorry. It is submitted that when the charge sheet has not been questioned by the accused himself, the Tribunal ought to have given due credence to the charge sheet. It is further submitted that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition without any basis. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has rightly considered the facts and dismissed the petition. It is further submitted that when an application is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the burden lies on the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46464 MFA No. 4523 of 2024 claimants to prove that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In this case, the claimants have failed to prove the same and the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim petition. It is further submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. It is clear that when an application is filed in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation, it is the duty of the claimant to prove that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is the case that, the accident had taken place and the deceased succumbed to the accidental injuries. In this case, though the charge sheet has been filed, everything is based on the statement given by the eyewitness. Therefore, the claimants ought to have examined the eye witness to the accident. 7. Further, it is not the case, the vehicle was seized at the spot. Admittedly, the vehicle was seized at a later point of time. In these circumstances, examining the eyewitness and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46464 MFA No. 4523 of 2024 also the Investigating Officer, who has conducted the investigation in the said crime is very much crucial in the facts and circumstances of the case. In those circumstances, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim petition. However, balancing the interests of both parties and in order to give an opportunity to the claimants, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following. i) The order dated 17.02.2024 passed in MVC No.897/2022 by the Court of Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Mysuru, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. ii) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. iii) Without further reference, the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 15.12.2025 and all the issues are left open. iv) Both parties are at liberty to adduce evidence within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this Order. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46464 MFA No. 4523 of 2024 Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. v) The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. vi) No Costs. vii) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82