- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32934 MFA No. 3069 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3069 OF 2016(MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJU H.V. S/O LATE VEERABADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDENT OF VAKKARANE BEEDI KOTE HOLENARASIPUR TOWN - 573 211. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVALINGAIAH S/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS CONDUCTOR OF KSRTC BUS BEARING NO.KA-18-F-498 MUDIGERE DEPT CHIKMAGALORE DEPOT CHIKMAGALORE - 577 101 2. YOGESH P.T. S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING NO.KA-18-F-498 MUDIGERE DEPOT., CHIKMAGALORE DEPOT CHIKMAGALORE - 577101. 3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32934 MFA No. 3069 of 2016 CHIKMAGALORE DIVISION, CHIKMAGALORE - 577 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3; V/O DATED 16.07.2019, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1962/14 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HOLENARASIPUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 11.01.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holenarasipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in MVC No. 1962/2014. 2. The injured claimant met with an accident on 04.07.2014 and filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32934 MFA No. 3069 of 2016 3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimant preferred the present appeal, mainly contending that on 04.07.2014 at about 4.30 p.m., while he was travelling in a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-18-F- 498 near Alagowdanahalli Gate, he requested the driver and conductor to stop the bus so that he could alight. Though the driver stopped the bus, while he was in the process of getting down, the conductor negligently gave the signal to move the bus. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. 4. The Insurance Company admitted the issuance of the insurance policy. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and evidence on record in their proper perspective and dismissed the claim petition based on assumptions and presumptions. It is further contended that the Tribunal relied upon Ex.R1 without properly appreciating the evidence and dismissed the claim petition without assigning valid reasons. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32934 MFA No. 3069 of 2016 5. The Tribunal observed that, in the complaint marked as Ex.P2, it was initially stated that when the bus was moving slowly near a road hump, the conductor opened the door and pushed the claimant from the bus, as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries. However, in the charge sheet, the incident was narrated differently, as stated in the appeal grounds. The Tribunal held that this constituted one material variation. It further observed that the MLC extract, marked as Ex.R1, referred to a fall from a bus at 4.00 p.m., after about one month, i.e., on 05.08.2014, the claimant submitted an affidavit stating that, by mistake, he had informed the doctor that it was an assault and therefore, the doctor had wrongly recorded it. The Tribunal treated this also as a material variation. 6. The Tribunal further observed that the doctor was not examined before the Court to establish that the incorrect history was recorded due to an oversight. It also noted that the registration number of the bus was initially - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32934 MFA No. 3069 of 2016 mentioned as 21065 and was subsequently corrected to KA-18-F-498. Further, while the time of the accident was stated to be 4.00 p.m., the bus ticket showed that it was issued at 4.13 p.m. at Mysore. The Tribunal held that it was impossible for the bus to reach the place of the accident by that time, considering that the distance was about 75 to 80 kilometres. It was also observed that there was no designated bus stop near Alagowdanahalli Gate. 7. The Tribunal has considered all these aspects in detail and has rightly dismissed the claim petition. This Court finds no valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are hereby confirmed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13