- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010526402012 NC: 2026:KHC:44500 MFA No. 1815 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1815 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. NAGENDRAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BOMMENAHALLY VILLAGE SRI RAMPURA HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B M SIDDAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M R SURAIAH DEAD BY HIS LR’S 1(A). THAMMANNA S/O LATE M.R. SURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522 CHITRADURGA 1(B). SURA NAYAKA S/O LATE M.R. SURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, LAB TECHNICIAN Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010526402012 NC: 2026:KHC:44500 MFA No. 1815 of 2012 GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL SIRA-572 137 TUMKUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 34/3, M.M.K. COMPLEX P.B. NO. 237, AKKAMMADEVI ROAD, P.J. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C. SEETHARMA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1(B) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, V/O DTD: 30.08.2024 NOTICE TO R1(A) IS H/S) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.12.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.323/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ITINERARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, HOSADURGA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.08.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 23.12.2011 passed by the Itinery Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hosadurga, in MVC No.323 of 2010. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010526402012 NC: 2026:KHC:44500 MFA No. 1815 of 2012 2. The injured claimant met with an accident on 13.03.2010 and filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant in which it is mainly contended that Tribunal relied upon Exhibit R2 and Exhibit R3 produced by respondent No.2 and observed that the charge sheet is filed against driver P.M. Ashok. The Tribunal disputed the involvement of the vehicle and dismissed the application. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 5. On 03.03.2010, the petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-17/E- 4339. One Shanta, son of Hanumantha Bhovi was riding the vehicle. At that time, the driver of tractor bearing Reg.no.KA- 16/T-5377 came in a rash and negligent manner in high speed without observing traffic rules and dashed to the motor cycle. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010526402012 NC: 2026:KHC:44500 MFA No. 1815 of 2012 As a result, both petitioner and rider of motor cycle fell down and sustained injuries. The petitioner took treatment as an inpatient at C.G.Hospital, Davanagere from 14.03.2010 to 24.03.2010, and also took treatment at Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere from 28.04.2010 to 13.05.2010, for 26 days. He was doing agriculture work and earning Rs.3,00,000/- p.a. 6. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and he was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 denied accident itself. It was contended that the condition of the tractor as observed by motor vehicle inspector and panchas of the spot mahazar goes to show that, the tractor was not involved in the accident. It was contended that respondent No.2 has not issued policy to the said tractor. The driver of tractor was not holding valid and effective driving licence. The owner knowing pretty well allowed the person to drive who had no valid driving licence. It is contended that the accident if any was taken place due to rash and negligence of rider the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-17/E-4339 and the rider, owner and insurer of motor cycle are not impleaded as parties. Therefore, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010526402012 NC: 2026:KHC:44500 MFA No. 1815 of 2012 parties. It is further stated that petitioner has not sustained injuries in the accident and the liability of Insurance Company is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is further stated that in the panchanama drawn on 14.03.2010, it is found that the engine, wheel, banet of the tractor were burnt. Petitioner has given the name of driver as Prakash, but in the charge sheet the driver name has been shown as Ashok. The rider of the vehicle gave complaint. Based on the complaint, charge sheet is filed against Ashok. It is contended that mahazar-exhibit P3 was conducted on 14.03.2010 between 9.00 and 9.45 a.m. and it shows that the tar road is having 16 feet width on the eastern side there is a kachcha rood. Tractor was lying in the road side drainage. The front portion of engine, front left wheel, bannet, staring cover, driver seat, air filter were totally burnt. The wheel of the trailer was in the drainage and left side of wheel is on the motor cycle. The head light, meter board, front wheel, indicators, petrol tank were damaged. In Ex.P.4, the motor vehicle inspector has observed burnt signs on tractor and damages caused to the motor cycle. The statement of P.W.1 was recorded on 30.04.2010, in which - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010526402012 NC: 2026:KHC:44500 MFA No. 1815 of 2012 it is stated that driver of the tractor ran away from the spot immediately after the accident leaving the tractor. Subsequently, he came to know that one Prakash was the driver, but the charge sheet is filed against Ashok. It is further stated that in panchanama, the damages sustained by the tractor are mentioned in detail, and both wheels of the trailer were in the drainage and left wheel of the trailer was on the motorcycle. When engine was burnt and wheel of the front side is burnt, it is very difficult to move the tractor from one place to another. It was stated that accident occurred on the road, but the position of the both vehicles in the drainage is contrary to the circumstances mentioned in the Panchanamma. Therefore, tribunal held that there is no negligence of driver of the tractor. Moreover, petitioner sustained burn injuries as per exhibit P9. 7. The version of the insurance company is that there was enmity between driver of the motorcycle and driver of the tractor. As such, petitioner set fire to the tractor and in the said process, he sustained burn injuries, but, in collusion with police authorities, they filed complaint against the driver of the motor - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010526402012 NC: 2026:KHC:44500 MFA No. 1815 of 2012 vehicle. The Tribunal considering the position of the vehicles immediately after the accident as per the mahazar and also nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the fact that the tractor was in a burnt condition, and as the petitioner said that he met with an accident on the road, but the vehicle was found in the drainage in a burnt condition, held that there is no involvement of the tractor. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that as it is a case of accident under Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal should not insist upon the strict proof of evidence. It is only a summary proceeding. Therefore, the accident is to be presumed based on the preponderance of probabilities. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita and Others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486, in which it was held as under: “In terms of S. 166 of the MV Act, 1988, Tribunal stricto sensu is not bound by pleadings of parties, and its function is to determine amount of fair compensation. Claimants are merely to establish their case on touchstone of preponderance of - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010526402012 NC: 2026:KHC:44500 MFA No. 1815 of 2012 probability, and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied by Tribunal dealing with motor accident cases. It is not an adversarial adjudication between litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute. Non-examination of witness per se cannot be treated as fatal to claim set up before Tribunal Approach in examining the evidence in accident claim cases is not to find fault with non-examination of some "best" eyewitness in the d case, but to analyse the evidence already on record to ascertain whether that is sufficient to answer the matters in issue on the touchstone of preponderance of probability Nor is there anything in the MV Act to preclude citing of a witness who has not been named in witness list in the criminal case. What is essential is that the opposite party should get a fair opportunity to cross- examine the witness concerned Approach of Tribunal should be holistic analysis of entire pleadings. Once, and evidence by applying principles of preponderance of probability foundational fact, namely, actual occurrence of accident, has been established, then Tribunal's role would be to calculate quantum of just compensation if accident had taken place by reason of negligence of driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, Tribunal would not be strictly bound by pleadings of parties.” 9. No doubt, claim petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act is to be tried summarily. But it is for the petitioner to prove the - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010526402012 NC: 2026:KHC:44500 MFA No. 1815 of 2012 manner of accident, the involvement of the vehicle, rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. In this case, the petitioner failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle, and he himself stated the name of the driver as Prakash, but the charge sheet is filed against another person Ashok, and it is not explained by him. The Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects and dismissed the application. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. 10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the award of the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71