- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2426 MFA No. 201275 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201275/2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, KALABURAGI MANSION, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-580 029, R/P BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. REVANSIDDA S/O HANAMANT, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: EX-MASON, R/O KANAK DAS CHOWK, JEWARGI-585 310, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI. 2. BHAGYAVANT S/O BASAVARAJ HALSHETTY, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF MAHINDRA BOLERO CITY PICK-UP TEMPO BEARING REG. NO. KA-32/D-6562, R/O. PO: SATKHED, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 310. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. ALI MOHAMMAD, ADV. FOR C/R1; R2-SERVED) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2426 MFA No. 201275 of 2024 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.02.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.463/2023 BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI) 1. Heard both sides. 2. Though this matter is slated for Admission, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. This appeal is by the Insurance Company assailing fastening of the liability upon it to pay the compensation awarded in MVC No.463/2023 on 07.02.2024 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Kalaburagi, (for short ‘the Tribunal’). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2426 MFA No. 201275 of 2024 4. The factual matrix of the case is that on 30.01.2023, the petitioner along with his brother and another while working as Hamalies at APMC Yard at Jewargi, were engaged by respondent No.1 to unload the cotton load on the vehicle bearing No.KA-32/D-6562, which is a Bolero pick up van and while they were going towards shop of one Raghu Pujari, the driver of the said van drove the same in negligent manner and the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital for treatment. A complaint came to be filed before the concerned Police Station on 03.02.2022 explaining that the brother of the petitioner was engaged in treatment of the petitioner and therefore, he could not lodge the complaint in time. 5. The Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station investigated the matter and ultimately filed charge- sheet against the driver of the Bolero pick up van. It is not in dispute that the Bolero pick up van was insured by the appellant/Insurance Company as on the date of the accident. 6. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and the Medical Officer was examined as PW2 and the documents at - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2426 MFA No. 201275 of 2024 Exs.P1 to P15 were marked in support of the case of the petitioner. The official of the Insurance Company was examined as RW1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2. 7. Obviously, respondent No.1, the owner of the vehicle had appeared before the Tribunal and taken up a contention that he had engaged the petitioner as a loader and unloader and while he was being taken to the shop of Raghu Pujari, the vehicle met with an accident. However, respondent No.1 did not enter into witness-box to reiterate the contention taken up in his written statement. 8. The Tribunal after appreciating evidence on record, held that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,39,200/- and rejected its claim that there was no such accident and that the petitioner was an unauthorized passenger on the said vehicle. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company is in appeal before this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2426 MFA No. 201275 of 2024 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the petitioner was an unauthorized passenger on the said vehicle and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. His second prong of the argument would be that there is delay of three days in filing the complaint and therefore, the accident itself is doubtful. 10. A perusal of the Trial Court Records would reveal that adequate reasons are mentioned in the complaint itself for delayed filing of the complaint. Obviously, respondent No.1 has not disputed the accident and therefore, when the Investigating Officer after investigation has filed the charge- sheet against the driver of the vehicle, these aspects having not been rebutted with sufficient evidence, the appellant cannot contend that there was no such accident. Therefore, this argument of the appellant is not sustainable in law. 11. Coming to the contention that the petitioner was an unauthorized passenger, it is evident that respondent No.1 owner of the vehicle has taken up a contention in his written statement that he had engaged the petitioner to work as a unloader and while he was taken to the shop of one Raghu - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2426 MFA No. 201275 of 2024 Pujari, the accident had occurred. Obviously, RW1 who is the official of the Insurance Company though reiterated the contention in the written statement, he is not a witness who can effectively rebut the charge-sheet. Therefore, when it is admitted fact by respondent No.1 that petitioner was engaged by him to work as an unloader and the seating capacity of the vehicle being 1 + 1, there being no other contention that the Insurance Company has satisfied the claims of any other claimants, the appellant cannot escape from the liability to pay the compensation. Therefore, when the petitioner claimed that he was an unloader in the vehicle and the claim of the petitioner being within the limits of the said seating capacity as mentioned in the policy, it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to prove that the petitioner was not an unloader. This aspect having not rebutted by any effective evidence by summoning respondent No.1, this Court holds that the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant. In that view of the matter, the appeal is bereft of any merits. As such, the same is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2426 MFA No. 201275 of 2024 12. The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 CT: AK